JUDGMENT : Rakesh Saksena; J, Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.1.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullanganj, District Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 191/1999, convicting them under Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count respectively. 2) Briefly stated, facts of the prosecution case are that there had occurred a dispute on 24.7.1999 between Kusum Dubey, the deceased with family members of her neighbour Om Prakash Dubey for her plucking Rs. mehndi leaves', which however, was pacified. On 27.7.1999, when Ram Kishore Dubey, husband of Smt. Kusum Dubey was going to market, as soon as he reached in front of the house of neighbour Bholaram, accused persons six in number confronted him. They were armed with Farsa, Luhangi, Iron Rod, Gidia and Lathis. They challenged him to settle the score and in a concert attacked him with their weapons. Hearing shrieks of Ramkishore Dubey, Kusum Dubey rushed to the spot and tried to rescue her husband, but they assaulted her also causing injuries to her all over the body. Thereafter, when Nirmal, Naveen and Jyoti, respectively sons and daughter of Ramkishore Dubey went to the spot and tried to save their parents, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Hearing uproar, Ram Bharose and Mahesh also reached at the spot. Ramkishore and Kusum succumbed to their injuries at the spot. Nirmal (PW3) along with his Uncle Ram Bharose and Jyoti went to police station Shahgunj and lodged the report of the incident. Vivek Asthana (PW9), Station Officer recorded the first information report Ex. P/2. He went to the spot and recorded merg intimation Ex. P/24 and prepared the spot map Ex. P/3. After conducting inquest proceedings and recording memorandums Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5, dead bodies of Ram Kishore and Kusum Dubey were sent to Community Health Centre, Budhni. Injured Nirmal, Naveen and Jyoti were also sent for medical examination and treatment. 3) On 27.7.1999, Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4) and Dr. Sandhya Rajgir (PW10) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead bodies and vide their postmortem reports Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5, dead bodies of Ram Kishore and Kusum Dubey were sent to Community Health Centre, Budhni. Injured Nirmal, Naveen and Jyoti were also sent for medical examination and treatment. 3) On 27.7.1999, Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4) and Dr. Sandhya Rajgir (PW10) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead bodies and vide their postmortem reports Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 opined that the deceased persons had died due to homicidal injuries and the injuries found on their bodies were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause their death. 4) On 27.7.1999, Dr. V. Deshmukh (PW8) examined the injuries of Nirmal, Jyoti and Naveen. Their M.L.C. reports are Ex. P/21, Ex. P/22 and Ex. P/23 respectively. In the X-ray report, humerus bone of the hand of Naveen was also found fractured. 5) On 28.7.1999, all the accused persons were arrested and on their information in the presence of Mansoor Ahmed (PW7), weapons used in the commission of the offence were recovered and seized by Investigating Officer Vivek Asthana (PW9). Clothes of accused persons were also seized. The seized articles were sent to F.S.L. for examination. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was then committed for trial. 6) During trial, as appeared from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, defence of the appellants was that some unknown persons caused the death of deceased persons in the night. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. Accused Sumit being juvenile, was sent for enquiry to Juvenile Court, Bhopal. 7) Prosecution examined 10 witnesses to substantiate its case. Mahesh (PW2), Nirmal (PW3), Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) were examined as eye witnesses of the case. Dr. R.K.  Bhatnagar (PW4) and Dr. Sandhya Rajgir (PW10) were examined to prove the injuries found on the body of deceased persons and Dr. V.V. Deshmukh (PW8) was examined to prove the injuries of injured persons. 8) Learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 9) Appellants Om Prakash and Bholaram died during pendency of the present appeal, therefore, their appeal stood abated. Their names were deleted from the cause title. 9) Appellants Om Prakash and Bholaram died during pendency of the present appeal, therefore, their appeal stood abated. Their names were deleted from the cause title. 10) It was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that deceased Ram Kishore Dubey and Kusum Dubey died of homicidal injuries. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4) and Dr. Sandhya Rajgir (PW10) that on 27.7.1999 they conducted the postmortem examination of dead bodies of Kusum Dubey and Ramkishore Dubey in Community Health Centre, Budhni. They found following injuries on the bodies of Smt. Kusum Dubey and Ram Kishore Dubey: Injuries of Smt. Kusum Dubey:- (i) Perforated lacerated wound 2.7 cm x 0.5 cm over lower lip on left side, (ii) lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.9 cm x bone deep mandibular region on left side, (iii) fracture of shaft of mandible on left side. Broken ends are visible through injury no.2, (iv) contusion 8 cm x 2.5 cm over left side of upper arm, (v) lacerated wound 11 x1 x bone deep over occipital region, (vi) lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left side of skull in parietal region, (vii) lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep on left occipital region, (viii) lacerated wound 5 cm x 1cm x bone deep over occipital region, (ix) lacerated wound 2.9 cm x1 cm x bone deep over left side of skull in occipital region, (x) contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm over back on left side below inferior angle to scapula, (xi) contusion 7 cm x 1.5 cm over left side of back lumber region, (xii) contusion 7 cm x 1.5 cm over left scapular region, (xiii) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left forearm above wrist, (xiv) contusion 5 cm x 1.5 cm over sup. surface of left shoulder, (xv) contusion 11 cm x 2cm over back on right side scapula, (xvi) contusion 14 cm x 2cm over back on right side just below inferior angle of scapula, (xvii) lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over right leg, (xviii) lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. over medial surface of right tibia and (xix) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left leg. x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. over medial surface of right tibia and (xix) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left leg. Injuries of Ramkishore Dubey:- (i) Compound fracture of both bones of left leg (tibia and fibula), visible through lacerated wound which is 8 cm x 8 cm x bone deep. Fracture of shaft of bones, (ii) fracture of both bones of left forearm above wrist, (iii) fracture of shafts of both bones of right forearm 10 cm above wrist where there is contusion of 8 cm x 3 cm present transversly, (iv) contusion 12 cm x 2.5 cm over lateral surface of left upper arm, (v) contusions 8 in number over back on right side of scapular region in different directions. Size varies from 10 cm x 3 cm to 7 cm x3 cm, (vi) lacerated wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep over right frontal region, (vii) lacerated wound 9 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over right temporal region, (viii) lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over right parietal region, (ix) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over right zygomatic region extending towards right eye, (x) contusion 1 cm x 3 cm over anterior surface of right thigh, (xi) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right upper arm dorsal surface, (xii) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right upper arm 1 cm above injury no.11, (xiii) lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right upper arm above injury no. 12, (xiv) lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.9 cm over bridge of nose transverse with fracture of nasal bones visible through wound, (xv) contusions 13 in number present over left hip, each measuring 10 cm x 3 cm parallel, (xvi) lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right tibia above ankle joint, (xvii) lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over chin, (xviii) contusion 8 cm x 8cm over chest on right side and (xix) fracture of shafts of ribs 3rd, 4th, 5th in mid clavicular region. In the opinion of doctors, the cause of death of Smt. Kusum Dubey and Ramkishore Dubey was cardio-respiratory failure due to severe hypovolumic shock, due to massive haemorhage from multiple lacerated wounds present on the persons of deceased followed by coma and death. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were caused due to forceful impacts with hard and blunt weapons. They were homicidal in nature. 11) Apart from the above evidence, from the evidence of Nirmal (PW3), Mahesh (PW2), Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6), it is established that injuries on the body of deceased persons were caused by the accused persons and as a result of injuries they had died. Investigating Officer Vivek Asthana (PW9) had conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded the injuries found on the body of deceased persons in inquest memo Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4. He also recorded first information report Ex. P/2 and merg report Ex. P/24 in that regard. It was thus clearly established that deceased Ramkishore Dubey and Kusum Dubey died of injuries sustained by them and that their death was homicidal in nature. 12) Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the trial Court committed error in placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses, who were close relatives and family members of the deceased. No independent witness was adduced in the case. He also submitted that the incident had occurred suddenly, therefore, it could not be held that the appellants had any motive or intention to commit murder of the deceased persons. As such, their conviction under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants. 13) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 14) We have carefully considered the evidence, circumstances and the probabilities of the case. We have also gone through the judgment under appeal with the help of both the learned counsel for the parties. 15) It is true that no independent witness has been examined in the case, but merely on that count the evidence of relative witnesses cannot be discarded altogether in the absence of very cogent reason. It has been held by the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. 15) It is true that no independent witness has been examined in the case, but merely on that count the evidence of relative witnesses cannot be discarded altogether in the absence of very cogent reason. It has been held by the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.- AIR 2009 SC 1 that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partialty is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. In the instant case, it is significant to note that Nirmal (PW3), Naveen (PW6) and Jyoti (PW5) are the sons and daughter of deceased persons and their presence at the place of occurrence stands established from the injuries found on their bodies which were sustained by them in the same incident. 16) Nirmal (PW3), the son of deceased deposed that he knew all the accused persons. At about 7 O' clock in the morning, while he was studying, his father Ramkishore left for the market. Hearing hue and cry, his mother went out of the house. He saw all the accused persons standing there with weapons. Om Prakash (dead) had Farsa, Uma Dutt had Luhanji, Bindu had Iron Rod, Amit had Gidia, Sumit (juvenile) had Lathi and Vishakha Bai had Lathi. All these persons assaulted to his father and mother. Both of them suffered injuries on their hands and other parts of the body. When he, his brother Naveen and Sister Jyoti went there to rescue them, they also assaulted them. Umadutt with his Luhangi and Bindu with Iron Rod assaulted him. Bholaram assaulted his sister. He, Naveen and Jyoti suffered injuries. His Uncles Mahesh Prasad and Rambharose also came at the spot. His mother and father died at the spot. He along with his uncle and sister went to police station and lodged the report Ex. P/2. 17) Evidence of Nirmal (PW3) finds corroboration from the evidence of Jyoti (PW5), Naveen (PW6) and Mahesh (PW2). Reiterating the same story, Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) deposed that in the morning at about 7 A.M., when their father was going to market Om Prakash along with other accused persons came near their house armed with weapons and assaulted their father. Reiterating the same story, Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) deposed that in the morning at about 7 A.M., when their father was going to market Om Prakash along with other accused persons came near their house armed with weapons and assaulted their father. Assailants were armed with Farsa, Luhangi, Iron Rod, Lathi and Gidia. Vishakha was also armed with a Lathi. When their mother went to save their father, all of them assaulted to her also. Jyoti deposed that when she, Nirmal and Naveen tried to save their parents, they were also assaulted. Bholaram dealt a Lathi blow on her leg. Om Prakash with Farsa, Umdadutt with Luhangi, Bindu with Iron Rod and Vishakha by Lathi assaulted to Naveen. Bholaram also assaulted to Nirmal. Her parents died at the spot. Hearing hue and cry, her uncles Rambharose and Mahesh also reached at the spot. 18) Mahesh Prasad (PW2) deposed that he knew all the accused persons. In the morning when he heard noise of some quarrel, he went out of his house and saw Ramkioshore Dubey lying on the ground and accused persons assaulting him with Lathi, Farsa, Luhangi, etc. Some of the accused persons were also beating Kusum Dubey, the wife of Ramkioshore Dubey and Naveen Dubey. Victims were smeared with blood. When Jyoti and Nirmal came out of their house to save them, they were also assaulted. 19) All the aforesaid eye witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross examination, but they remained firm and nothing could be elicited out from their evidence. The discrapencies and contradictions in their evidence pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants were not of substantial nature and were merely the matter of details. Presence of Nirmal (PW3), Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) is further reinforced by the injuries found on their bodies. 20) Dr. V.V. Deshmukh (PW8) examined the injuries of Nirmal, Jyoti and Naveen. He found following injuries on their bodies: Injuries of Nirmal:- (i) Swelling 2" x 2" on left side back, (ii) swelling 2" x 3" on right hand elbow, (iii) swelling 1" x 1 1/2" on left hand elbow, (iv) swelling 2" x 1" above left ear and (v) swelling 2" x 2" on right knee. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were simple in nature. His injury report is Ex. P/21. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were simple in nature. His injury report is Ex. P/21. Injuries of Jyoti:- (i) Swelling 1" x 3" on left elbow, (ii) swelling 1" x 3" on left knee joint and (iii) swelling 2"x 2" on right shoulder. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were simple in nature. Her injury report is Ex. P/22. Injuries of Naveen:- (i) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on right cheek, (ii) Incised wound 1 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on right side of chin, (iii) swelling on left elbow joint, (iv) swelling on right shoulder joint and (v) swelling on back all over right scapular area. Injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by some sharp edged object and other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Injuries nos. 3, 4 and 5 were referred to X-ray examination. Injury nos. 1 and 2 were simple in nature. His injury report is Ex. P/23. 21) Evidence of Nirmal (PW3) finds further support from the first information report Ex. P/2 lodged by him at police station Shahgunj within half an hour of the occurrence. As far as the presence of independent witness at the spot is concerned, Naveen (PW6) testified that after his parents died, 15-20 persons had reached from the neighbourhood. His uncles Mahesh and Rambharose had reached first. Mahesh (PW2) also stated that about 25-30 persons had come at the place of occurrence, but they had come late, after the occurrence was over. 22) We find no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of aforesaid eye witnesses was not reliable because they did not specifically point out as to which injury of the deceased persons was caused by whom. From the evidence of Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4), who performed the postmortem examination of the bodies of deceased persons, it is apparent that Ramkishore sustained 19 injuries on his body. Injury no. 5 were contusions which were 8 in number. Thus, total number of his injuries was 26 and deceased Kusum Dubey had sustained 19 injuries on her body. The assailants were seven in number. Witnesses had also suffered injuries in the same incident, therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be expected from the witnesses to describe that who caused which injury to victims. Thus, total number of his injuries was 26 and deceased Kusum Dubey had sustained 19 injuries on her body. The assailants were seven in number. Witnesses had also suffered injuries in the same incident, therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be expected from the witnesses to describe that who caused which injury to victims. 23) It is true that no specific evidence in respect of motive for the occurrence has been adduced by the prosecution, but where there is direct evidence of the incident, the absence of prove of motive cannot be held to effect the veracity of the prosecution case. In Gurucharan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1956 SC 460 the Apex Court observed that where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. It was again observed by the Apex Court in Narayan Nathu Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 1971 SC 1656 , that the Court need not consider the question of motive, if it is satisfied that the evidence that accused was the assailant of victim is acceptable. 24) After closely scanning and scrutinizing the evidence on record, we find that the evidence of eye witnesses adduced in the case is clear, cogent and reliable. Trial Court has committed no error in placing implicit reliance on their evidence in holding the appellants guilty of causing death of two deceased persons namely Ramkishore Dubey and Smt. Kusum Dubey. Their conviction under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code is also justified. 25) We find no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that the intention of the appellants was not to commit murder of the deceased persons. It has been amply established that the appellants caused in all about 45 injuries to deceased persons. There were injuries on the vital parts like head and chest resulting in fractures of many bones. They caused death of Smt. Kusum Dubey when she tried to rescue her husband and they caused injuries to their children also when they made attempt to save their parents. The conduct of appellants clearly indicated that they caused death of deceased persons with the intention of committing their murder. Their conviction by the trial Court under Section 302/149 IPC is, therefore, affirmed. The conduct of appellants clearly indicated that they caused death of deceased persons with the intention of committing their murder. Their conviction by the trial Court under Section 302/149 IPC is, therefore, affirmed. 26) In view of the above, in our opinion, no grounds have been made out for interference. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.