JUDGMENT 1. - Having been convicted for offences under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and directed to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30th May, 1985, Hazari Ram (PW-6) lodged a report at Police Station Dewatara, wherein he stated that early in the morning around 5:00 - 5:30 am, he was going for answering the call of nature. While he was walking, Gopi Ram met him and informed him that he is going to Bhojaram Ki Dhani. After walking for sometime, while Hazari Ram went for his morning activities, Gopi Ram turned towards Bhojaram Ki Dhani. However, immediately thereafter he heard hue and cry of Gopi Ram. He further claims that when he rushed to the place from where the hue and cry was coming, he saw Mohan Singh, Radha Kishan, Mohan Singh's mother Rami and Radha Kishan's wife assaulting Gopi Ram. Immediately, he rushed towards the village where he met Gopi Ram's brother, Mohan Lal. He informed Mohan Lal that Gopi Ram is being assaulted. Instantly, both of them rushed to the rescue of Gopi Ram. When the assailants saw Hazari Ram and Mohan Lal coming to the scene of crime, they ran away. Hazari Ram further claims that when they went and asked Gopi Ram the reason why he was being assaulted, Gopi Ram told them that there was some dispute with regard to the loan amount between him and the assailants. When he and others were trying to take Gopi Ram to the Hospital, Gopi Ram scummed to his injuries. 3. On the basis of the said report, a FIR was chalked out for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Although four persons were named in the FIR, after a thorough investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet only against the appellants, Mohan Singh and Radha Kishan, and did not file any charge-sheet against Mohan Singh's mother Rami and3 against Radha Kishan's wife. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, and submitted twenty-seven documents. In order to support their defence, the appellants examined two witnesses, and submitted few documents. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, and submitted twenty-seven documents. In order to support their defence, the appellants examined two witnesses, and submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. R.K. Charan, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses as they are related to the deceased. Mohan Lal (PW-3) is the real brother of the deceased, Hazari Ram (PW-6) is his uncle. Even Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2) are those who have taken the loan from Gopi Ram, the deceased. Thus, all of them are interested witnesses. Therefore, their testimony is doubtful.Secondly, some of the eye-witnesses namely Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2) have not been named in the FIR. Therefore, it is doubtful whether they are real eye-witnesses, or they are merely concocted witnesses of the prosecution ?Thirdly, according to the complainant, Hazari Ram (PW-6) himself, it was early in the morning and4 there was insufficient light for the eye-witnesses to be able to identify the appellants as the assailants.Fourthly, even Lathies, which have been recovered, do not have any blood stain on them. Therefore, the recovery of the lathies from the appellants is irrelevant.Fifthly, the motive for committing the alleged murder has not been proved.Sixthly, the prosecution has changed the place of the occurrence. According to the FIR, when Gopi Ram reached the farm of Ramchandra Singh, Purohit Ki Dhani, near the village, he started shouting for help. Thus, according to the FIR, the occurrence took place just outside the village near the farm of Ramchandra Singh, Purohit Ki Dhani. However, the body was discovered far away from the village on the farm of Bhojaram Suthar. Hence, the very place of occurrence has been changed. Therefore, the genesis of the occurrence is unknown.Seventhly, Hazari Ram, who happens to be the uncle of Gopi Ram, initially does not rush to his rescue. Instead, he runs towards the village; his conduct, in not trying to rescue of his own nephew, creates doubt about his presence at the scene of the crime. Therefore, the genesis of the occurrence is unknown.Seventhly, Hazari Ram, who happens to be the uncle of Gopi Ram, initially does not rush to his rescue. Instead, he runs towards the village; his conduct, in not trying to rescue of his own nephew, creates doubt about his presence at the scene of the crime. Moreover,5 even Mohan Lal, who happens to be the real brother of Gopi Ram, does not try to capture the assailants, but lets them to go. Therefore, it is doubtful whether whey are really eye-witnesses or not ?Lastly, according to Panna Ram (PW-2), the injuries caused on the head of Gopi Ram were caused by the ladies. However, they have not been charge-sheeted by the Police. Even during the trial, no process was issued against them as neither the prosecution, nor the complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the injuries assigned to the appellants were caused on non-vital parts of the body. Therefore, neither the intention, nor the knowledge can be attributed to them. In case they had any intention to kill Gopi Ram, they certainly would have assaulted him on the vital parts of his body. Furthermore, the assailants have already undergone 50% of their sentence as they have completed three and half years of his sentence out of seven years. Hence, their sentence should be reduced to as undergone. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Rawal, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that merely because the witnesses happen to be related, their testimony cannot be thrown over-board. According to him, in case their testimony is corroborated by other independent evidence, then their testimony is certainly acceptable.Secondly, the FIR is not supposed to be encyclopedic in its coverage. Merely because a few eyewitnesses may not have been named, would not make their testimony doubtful.Thirdly, according to the complainant, the incident had occurred on 30th May, 1985. Since it was summer month, around 5:00 - 5:30 early in the morning, there is sufficient light for the eye-witnesses to be able to identify the assailants. Moreover, according to Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2), the assailants are their neighbors and are resident of the same village. Hence, even in early in the morning, familiar person can certainly be identified.Fourthly, the independent witnesses of recovery of lathies have supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, according to Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2), the assailants are their neighbors and are resident of the same village. Hence, even in early in the morning, familiar person can certainly be identified.Fourthly, the independent witnesses of recovery of lathies have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, even if there is no blood on the lathies, this would not dilute the case of the prosecution.Fifthly, in case of direct evidence, motive looses its significance. Even if the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, it would not be fatal to the prosecution.Sixthly, thirty injuries were caused on the deceased by the appellants for which they have rightly been convicted for offences under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code reach with Section 34 IPC.Lastly, human nature is not something that can be prescribed in a strait-jacket formula. Each individual tends to react in his own peculiar ways. Merely because Hazari Ram and Mohan Lal did not try to catch hold of the assailants, would not make their presence, at the scene of crime, doubtful. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and examined the impugned judgment. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that the testimony of the interested witnesses cannot be discarded, in toto, only on the ground that they happen to be related to the deceased. After all, they, who have lost a person in the family, would not falsely implicate a stranger. The normal human tendency would be to implicate the culprits of the crime. 8. Although, it is true that in the present case, the eye-witnesses happen to be related to the deceased either as real brother or as close relatives, but their testimonies find ample corroboration from other evidence. Ganesha Ram (PW-1), Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Hazari Ram (PW-6) have graphically described the assault. The witnesses clearly claim that they saw Gopi Ram being chased by the appellants, who were carrying lathies in their hand. They further claim that both the appellants along with two ladies assaulted the deceased. Their testimony, about the injuries, is further corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Narsingh Dar Bithu (PW-13). Dr. Narsingh informed the court that the deceased had suffered as many as thirty injuries on his body. According to the witnesses, when they spoke to Gopi Ram immediately after the assault, there was bleeding from his ear. Their testimony, about the injuries, is further corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Narsingh Dar Bithu (PW-13). Dr. Narsingh informed the court that the deceased had suffered as many as thirty injuries on his body. According to the witnesses, when they spoke to Gopi Ram immediately after the assault, there was bleeding from his ear. This fact is further corroborated by the injury report. For, injury No.15 clearly shows that there was dried blood near the right ear. Moreover, Bhagirath (PW-4) supports the recovery and claims that Radha Kishan had gone inside his house and had brought out a lathi from the Barda (a place where animals are kept). Similarly, Mohan Singh had gone into a room of his house and had brought out a lathi. Since there is sufficient corroborative evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses, although they may be related to the deceased. 9. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that a FIR is not meant to be encyclopedic in its coverage.9 Being First Information Report, it is sufficient that the Police is informed that a cognizable offence has been committed by known or unknown persons. The names of Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2) have not been revealed in the FIR. Merely because, Hazari Ram (PW-6) does not name these witnesses in the FIR, it would not ipso facto imply that they were not eyewitnesses. Most importantly, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., - a statement recorded immediately after the lodging of the FIR, - he clearly states that Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2) were present when the alleged crime occurred. Their presence is also being testified by other eye-witnesses. Hence, their presence cannot be doubted. 10. Ganesha Ram (PW-1) clearly states that when he had gotten up, early in the morning, to feed his animals, it was dark. However, he further tells the court that when he heard Gopi Ram's hue and cry, dawn had already broken out. There was sufficient light in the sky. Similarly, Panna Ram (PW-2) clearly states that there was light of early dawn in the sky, when the occurrence took place. Similar statement is also made by Hazari Ram (PW-6). According to him, when he was going for answering the call of nature, there was sufficient light of early dawn in the sky. There was sufficient light in the sky. Similarly, Panna Ram (PW-2) clearly states that there was light of early dawn in the sky, when the occurrence took place. Similar statement is also made by Hazari Ram (PW-6). According to him, when he was going for answering the call of nature, there was sufficient light of early dawn in the sky. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place on 30th May, 1985, a summer month, sufficient light is present early in the morning. Thus, it is not surprising that dawn had already broken out at 5:00 - 5:30 am. Moreover, according to Ganesha Ram (PW-1) and Panna Ram (PW-2), the appellants happen to be their neighbors. Thus, it is not surprising that they could identify the appellants even in the early light of dawn. 11. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in case of direct evidence, even if the prosecution fails to prove the motive, it is not fatal to it. In the present case, there are five different eyewitnesses, who have consistently described the occurrence. According the witnesses themselves, Gopi Ram, used to loan amount to them as well. Moreover, when they asked the reason why he was assaulted, Gopi Ram told them that the appellants had assaulted him because of certain dispute over a loan. Therefore, sufficient motive has been proven by the prosecution. 12. As far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is unacceptable. According to some of the witnesses, they saw Gopi Ram being chased by the assailants. According to all the witnesses, the fatal assault occurred on the farm of Bhojaram Suthar. Thus, the prosecution has not changed the place of occurrence. 13. Human nature does not follow consistent pattern. While one person may risk his life and try to capture the assailants, others may recoil and try to avoid the assailants. Therefore, merely because Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Hazari Ram (PW-6) did not try to capture the assailants, their omission would not make their presence questionable. 14. It is interested to note that according to the prosecution, the appellants were not carrying lethal weapons, armed as they were with merely lathies. Moreover, according to the post-mortem report of Gopi Ram, he had suffered thirty injuries. 14. It is interested to note that according to the prosecution, the appellants were not carrying lethal weapons, armed as they were with merely lathies. Moreover, according to the post-mortem report of Gopi Ram, he had suffered thirty injuries. However, except for injuries Nos.28, 29 and 30, which were on his head, rest of the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body, such as arms, legs and chest. According to Panna Ram, the injuries on the head were caused by two women, namely the mother of Mohan Singh, Rami and Radha Kishan's wife. However, they were never charge-sheeted by the Police. Thus, according to the prosecution, Mohan Singh and Radha Kishan, had assaulted the deceased on his non-vital parts. In case, they had any intention to kill him, they would have assaulted him on the vital part especially the head. However, they had not done so. Therefore, the intention to cause death of Gopi Ram is conspicuously missing. At best it can be argued that having caused twenty-seven injuries, that too, on12 different parts of the body, they can be attributed with the knowledge that by doing so, they were likely to cause the death of Gopi Ram. Therefore, the conviction for offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code is certainly legal. 15. However, considering the fact that the occurrence took place over a trifle cause, considering the fact that ordinary weapons like lathies were used for assaulting the deceased, considering the fact that the appellants have already undergone 50% of their sentence, they have been punished sufficiently for their crime. Moreover, considering the fact that the appellants are on bail and are leading a peaceful and tranquil life, considering the fact that they have re-entered the society as its contributory members, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them back to the jail for serving out the remaining part of their sentence. Since one of the aims of punishment is to reform a convicted person, since the appellants have already reformed themselves so as to peaceful co-exist with the society at large, in the interest of justice this Court reduces their sentence to the period already undergone by them. Since they are on bail, their bail bonds need be not forfeited.With these observations, this appeal is, hereby, allowed.Appeal Allowed. *******