Anil Kumar Sharma, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 5.12.1990, passed by the then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 204 of 1987, State Vs. Jagdish Singh and others, whereby appellant Arvind Singh had been convicted under section 302/34 IPC and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The remaining accused-appellants were convicted under section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and each of them had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for ten years respectively. Appellant Raghupati Singh had died during pendency of appeal, therefore, his appeal stands abated. 2. The facts germane to the present appeal are that on 2.5.1986 at 10.35 p.m. Jagdamba Singh s/o Thakur Prasad Singh, r/o village Ukraura, P. S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh submitted a written report scribed by Kesari Prasad Singh in P. S. Kotwali, Azamgarh, wherein he stated that he is carrying a small shop in Bazar of village Ukraura. Co-villagers Arvind Singh had taken goods from his shop on credit. When he went at the house Arvind Singh for getting his money back, his father Jagdish Singh retorted that they would pay his money whenever it is available. He replied that his son used to take goods on credit on the pretext of visit of guests and pretended that if the goods are not delivered they would be insulted, now he is misbehaving like this. The complainant after closing the shop in the evening returned home as he had to go to village Sakhia along with his brother Rajendra for purchasing sarpat and bamboos for thatching roof for the animals' habitat. Arvind Singh, Jagdish Singh, Raghupati Singh and Lagan Bhar of that village met them in village Sakhia. Jagdish Singh demanded money from them for country liquor, whereupon his brother said that money is given to the gentleman who repays, he abuses when credit money is demanded. On hearing this Jagdish Singh in anguish hurling abuses said that in the morning also he has insulted and exhorted Arvind Singh to eliminate them. Thereafter at about 7.00 p.m. Arvind Singh fired two shots on the complainant and his brother by country made pistol. They ran, but Rajendra fell down near the house of Sukhdeo Bhar. He was caught by the aforesaid four persons. They cried for help. Thereafter at about 7.00 p.m. Arvind Singh fired two shots on the complainant and his brother by country made pistol. They ran, but Rajendra fell down near the house of Sukhdeo Bhar. He was caught by the aforesaid four persons. They cried for help. Raghupati Singh started assaulting complainant's brother on head by brick, while Lagan Bhar caught hold his legs. In the mean time Arvind Singh brought baghari and started cutting his neck, when Arvind Singh shouted that baghari had bended, Jagdish Singh brought a saw ( aari) and joined in chopping the head of Rajendra Singh. On hearing alarm of the complainant, Suraj Nath and Amar Nath came at the spot and witnessed the incident, they tried to intervene, but were threatened, so they stepped backward. Accused persons again assembled for assaulting Rajendra Singh, and after cutting his neck dragged his dead body to the field of Shakloo Yadav and thereafter extending threats left the scene of occurrence. 3. On the basis of the above report case at crime no. 374 of 1986 was registered at police station, investigation whereof was entrusted to S.S.I. Surya Deo Rai. He interrogated the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, prepared site plan and conducted inquest upon the dead body of the deceased. Blood stained earth, aari, shoe of the deceased and clothes were also seized from the spot. Cadaver of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination in a sealed cover. 4. Dr. K.K. Singh conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 3.5.1986 at 3.30 p.m. He found that 30-years old deceased was average built of muscular body. Rigor mortis was present in upper and lower part of his body. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased : 1. Incised wound over the neck at the level of C1/C2 vertebrae through and through from right to left downwards and other from left and right in downwards. Circumference 15 cms x 13 cms C2 vertebrate cut at two places size 1 cm x 0.3 cm and the other 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm only a small vertebrate ligament connect from head to neck. 2. Multiple incised wound eight in number and left side skull in different directions. Maximum size 7 cms x 1.5 cms x bone deep. Minimum size 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm x scalp deep. 3. 2. Multiple incised wound eight in number and left side skull in different directions. Maximum size 7 cms x 1.5 cms x bone deep. Minimum size 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm x scalp deep. 3. Multiple incised wounds seven in numbers in different directions. Maximum size 7 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep and minimum size 2 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 4. Multiple incised wounds three in numbers in different directions on the forehead. Maximum size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. Minimum size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 5. Incised wound 16 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep right face entering from angle of mouth to 4 cms back to right ear. 6. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep front of right hand at base of little finger to index finger underneath bones cut. 7. Incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm on right thumb back muscle deep. 8. Incised wound 2 cms x 2 cms x bone deep ( cut on terminal phalanx of left little finger. 9. Incised wound 3 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep over thumb proximal phalanx. 10. Incised wound 6 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep superior surface on right shoulder. 11. Contusion 25 cms x 5 cms on right side chest near axillary below axillary fold. 12. Abrasion 1.5 cms x 1 cm right side back, 7 cms back of angle of scapula. In internal examination, the doctor found that Larynx vessels were cut, and semi-digested food weighing 40 oz. was found in the stomach. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased suffered death about a day before due to shock and hemorrhage caused by ante mortem injuries. 5. The investigating officer after completing the other formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 6. After committal of the case to the Court of Session, charges for the offence punishable under section 307 and 302/34 IPC were framed against accused-appellant Arvind Singh, while remaining accused-appellants were charged under section 307/34 and 302/34 IPC. All the accused-appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined complainant Jagdamba Singh PW-1, Amar Nath PW-2, Dr. K.K. Singh PW-3, Head constable Lallu Yadav PW-4, S.I. Surya Deo Rai PW-5 and constable Yogendra Singh PW-6. All the accused-appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined complainant Jagdamba Singh PW-1, Amar Nath PW-2, Dr. K.K. Singh PW-3, Head constable Lallu Yadav PW-4, S.I. Surya Deo Rai PW-5 and constable Yogendra Singh PW-6. All the accused-appellants in their separate statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. have again denied the entire prosecution story, stating their false implication on account of enmity. However, they have not adduced any oral evidence in defence. 8. After hearing the parties counsel, learned Additional Sessions Judge through the impugned judgment and order had convicted the accused-appellants as stated in para-1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the appellants have come up in the appeal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the original record of the case carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged the following points before us in support of his contention that the conviction of the appellants is illegal and not based on evidence on record: i) that the FIR is ante-timed; ii) that there was no motive and the alleged motive is too weak for the accused to kill the deceased; iii) that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 is not proved; iv) that interested and highly partisan witnesses have been examined and no independent witness had been produced by the prosecution, so the story is highly doubtful; v) that the manner of assault is highly improbable and does not explain the injuries found on the person of the deceased; vi) that the medical evidence adduced in the case does not corroborate the alleged eye witness account of the incident. vii) That the investigation is not only unfair but tainted. Per contra learned AGA has contended that the FIR is not ante-timed; that motive for the crime finds place in the prompt FIR of the complainant; that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the spot is well proved; that there is no inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, and that any lapses in the investigation of the case is not fatal to the prosecution, which is well proved through the testimony of eye witnesses and fully corroborated by medical evidence. 11. 11. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 2.5.1986 at about 7.00 p.m. in village Sakhia, whereas the complainant is resident of village Ukraura. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 9 Kms. The complainant has stated that he stayed at the spot for about two hours and by that time his family members arrived there. The place of incident is village Sakhia, situated at a distance of about 1½ Kms. from the house of the complainant. He further stated that from the place of incident he came to his village where he stayed for about 30-45 minutes and in the meantime he got the report prepared at his home through his cousin Kesari Nath Singh, who was head clerk in Collectorate. He boarded a truck from the road and then came to Kotwali. It has come in his cross-examination that he had studied up to 7th standard. He had denied the suggestion that he is clerk of an advocate or deed writer. His consistent statement is that he runs a small shop in the village. The police reached at the spot for investigation at 11.55 p.m., but due to paucity of proper light it could not held. The inquest report shows that the investigating officer conducted inquest on the cadaver of deceased Rajendra Singh at 6 a. m. on 3.5.1986 and the dead body was dispatched for autopsy at 7 a. m., which was held by Dr. K. K. Singh PW-3 at about 3.30 p.m. All the accused-appellants are named in the FIR. The deceased has sustained more than two dozens incised wounds and his head was virtually chopped. The registration of FIR on the basis of written report of the complainant has also been testified by HC Lallu Yadav PW-4, who had registered the case at the police station and had proved the check report as also the corresponding GD report as Ex. Ka-4 and Ka-5 respectively by producing the original GD of 2.5.1986 in the Court. In the inquest report Ex. Ka-6 and other related papers, the crime number and section of the offence had been written. No doubt in Form no.13, the time of death had not been mentioned, but it is not significant. Ka-4 and Ka-5 respectively by producing the original GD of 2.5.1986 in the Court. In the inquest report Ex. Ka-6 and other related papers, the crime number and section of the offence had been written. No doubt in Form no.13, the time of death had not been mentioned, but it is not significant. In this document the doctor has endorsed that the papers were received by him at 2.00 p. m. on 3.5.1986 and autopsy was done at 3.30 p. m. The defence could not elicit any adverse circumstance from the cross-examination HC Lallu Yadav PW-4, which may create any doubt about the time of registration of the case at the police station. It is noteworthy that in cross-examination SI Surya Deo Rai PW-5, it has come that on 2.5.1986 prior to the instant case two cases pertaining to cognizable offences were registered at the police station, the last was registered at 9.20 p.m. and the FIR of the instant case was registered at 10.35 p.m. Thus, we find that the external checks available on record do also indicate that the report of the crime had been registered at the time given in the check report Ex. Ka-4 and it is not ante-timed at all. 12. In the detailed written report of the complainant, motive for the accused to commit crime has been noted in detail, which has been mentioned in para-2 of the judgment. Although PW-1 has been cross-examined at length by the defence to show false implication of accused persons, but they had failed in their endeavor. The complainant runs a small shop in the village and sells different items of daily need. His consistent case is that Arvind Singh used to buy goods without paying money and he owed Rs. 150/- towards him, which on demand were not paid by his father Jagdish Singh, instead he charged the complainant for insulting them. On the day of incident after closing the shop in the evening, the complainant along with his deceased brother had gone to village Sakhia in search of bamboo and sarpat used for making habitat for animals where all the accused met them. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the alleged motive is insufficient to commit a heinous crime like murder. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the alleged motive is insufficient to commit a heinous crime like murder. Per contra learned AGA has contended that the instant case is based on direct evidence of eye witnesses, so motive has become irrelevant, which may be otherwise important in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with this issue in the impugned judgment and has repelled the argument of the defence. The appellants have tried to show that the deceased was of criminal back ground, and for this number of cases have been suggested to PW-1 in his cross-examination against the deceased, but the same have been totally denied by him. The documentary evidence filed by the defence show that the deceased was an accused in few criminal cases, but that would not suggest that he was killed by any other person. The question is why would the complainant rope in the accused persons falsely, leaving out the real culprits? Further several documents have been brought on record by the prosecution to show that accused Arvind Singh was accused in number of criminal cases. It is trite law that motive is locked in the mind of the accused and some times, the prosecution find it difficult to lead positive evidence on this score. Apart from the accused, the deceased also quite often as to why he is being killed by them. On its face value as well, the alleged motive appears to be adequate. Accused Jagdish Singh felt insulted on demand of money by the complainant which he owed towards him and apart from it he further demanded money in village Sakhia for illicit liquor, which the complainant declined reiterating his earlier stand about demand of payment of goods purchased from his shop by his son without payment. Experience show that nowadays murders are being committed on very trivial matters. People are losing patience and self-control. Further motive is not an ingredient of any offence nor it is sina qua non for the crime. The ultimate result of the case would depend on the reliability of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with medical evidence and other surrounding circumstances. However, suffice it to say that whatever motive has been alleged by the prosecution in the case stands proved. 13. The ultimate result of the case would depend on the reliability of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with medical evidence and other surrounding circumstances. However, suffice it to say that whatever motive has been alleged by the prosecution in the case stands proved. 13. Now as regards examination of interested and highly partisan witness and non examination of independent witness is concerned, it is true that witnesses examined in the case are real brother and uncle of the deceased, but that itself does not make their testimony liable to rejection. It is a broad-day light murder in which the deceased was brutally killed by virtually chopping his head. The incident did not take place in the village of complainant or accused-appellants except appellant Lagan Bhar. It has come in cross-examination of PW-1 that no one of village Sakhia arrived at the scene of occurrence to save the deceased or their rescue. Who can come forward to save the victim or depose against such dare devils? Moreover it has come in evidence and the learned trial Court has also observed that village Sakhia is a very small village having only 8-10 houses. Accused Lagan Bhar of this village was involved in the incident, so if no one from village Sakhia came at the spot during the incident, it would not make any difference. PW-1 and 2 have been extensively cross-examined about their presence along with the deceased on the spot at the time of incident. PW-1 has specifically stated that after closing the shop early he had gone with his deceased brother to village Sakhia in search of bamboos and sarpat for making accommodation for the animals. This fact clearly finds place in the written report of the complainant and there is no improvement in this regard. Similarly PW-2 has deposed that while he was passing through village Sakhia at the time of incident while returning back from village Daudah along with his brother, he heard noise of Jagdamba Singh at about 6.45 p.m. and then reached at the spot and witnessed the incident. He had been cross-examined at length about his presence at the spot and manner of assault by the defence, but nothing adverse could be elicited in his cross-examination. He had been cross-examined at length about his presence at the spot and manner of assault by the defence, but nothing adverse could be elicited in his cross-examination. In the case of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2008( 61) ACC 972 ( SC), the Apex Court has observed that the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or family member of the victim of the offence. In such a case, court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence of such witness and if the testimony of the related witness is otherwise found credible the accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of such related witness. In this view of the matter, the prosecution case is not affected by examination of related witnesses and non-examination of independent witnesses. 14. Right from the FIR, the consistent case of the prosecution is that on 2.5.1986, the complainant along with his deceased brother Rajendra Singh had gone to village Sakhia in the evening in search of sarpat and bamboos where Arvind Singh, Jagdish Singh, Raghupati Singh and Lagan Bhar of that village met them. Jagdish Singh demanded money from the complainant for drinking country liquor, whereupon he retorted that money is given to the gentleman who repays, he abuses when credit money is demanded. On hearing this Jagdish Singh hurling abuses exhorted that in the morning also he had insulted him and asked Arvind Singh to eliminate them by country made pistol, then at about 7.00 p.m. Arvind Singh fired two shots, the complainant and his brother took on their heels, but Rajendra fell down near the house of Sukhdeo Bhar. He was caught by the aforesaid four persons. They cried for help. Raghupati Singh started assaulting complainant's brother on head by brick, while Lagan Bhar caught hold his legs. In the mean time Arvind Singh brought baghari and started cutting his neck, when Arvind Singh shouted that baghari had bended, Jagdish Singh brought a saw and joined in severing the head of Rajendra Singh from his neck. On hearing alarm of the complainant, Suraj Nath and Amar Nath came at the spot and witnessed the incident, they tried to intervene, but were threatened, so they stepped backward. On hearing alarm of the complainant, Suraj Nath and Amar Nath came at the spot and witnessed the incident, they tried to intervene, but were threatened, so they stepped backward. Accused persons again assembled for assaulting Rajendra Singh, and after cutting his neck dragged his dead body to the field of Shakloo Yadav and thereafter extending threats left the scene of occurrence. Both the witnesses of fact examined in the case namely PW-1 and PW-2 have reiterated this story in their deposition before the trial Court and there is no improvement at all. After thoroughly examining the testimony of these witnesses, we find that there are no contradictions, exaggerations or embellishment therein. Their deposition, in the facts and circumstances of the case is cogent, clear and reliable. 15. Assailing the prosecution story, the learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the medical evidence adduced in the case do not corroborate eye witness account of the incident rather they are contradictory. To buttress his arguments he has contended : i) that there was no gun shot injury on the person of the deceased; ii) that no brick injury had been noted by the doctor as ante-mortem injury in his post-mortem notes; iii) that the deceased was alleged dragged by the accused, but no drag mark could be found on his person by the autopsy doctor; and PW-1 had stated that on the exhortation of accused Jagdish Singh, his son co-accused Arvind Singh fired two shots on them, but they ran and did not sustain any gun-shot injury. In these circumstances, if no fire-arm injury was not found on the person of the deceased by the doctor, it does not belie the prosecution story. As regards injuries from brick is concerned, both the witnesses of fact examined in the case have stated that accused Jagdish Singh was assaulting Rajendra Singh on his head with brick and a blood stained piece of brick was also seized by the investigating officer from the spot. It is further true that no lacerated wound had been found by the doctor on the head of the deceased, but he has not been cross-examined by the defence on this point. It is further true that no lacerated wound had been found by the doctor on the head of the deceased, but he has not been cross-examined by the defence on this point. Number of incised wounds were found on the head of the deceased, therefore it might be possible that the seat of incised and lacerated wounds may be same and in that event the lacerated wound on the head would not be visible. Now as regards dragging of the deceased up to the field of Saklu Yadav, the consistent case of the prosecution is that after killing the deceased, the accused persons dragged his cadaver to the aforesaid field. This distance according to PW-1 was about 60-70 steps. The investigating officer has shown the place where the deceased was assaulted by point 'C' in site plan whereas the place of recovery of dead body had been noted by point 'D'. He has not noted the distance between point 'C' and 'D', but it does not make any difference. The I.O. has found trail of blood between these points. The samples of plain and blood stained earth were also taken from this place and the bushirt and shoe of deceased was also seized from there. These facts clearly show that the deceased suffered death at point 'C' and his dead body was carried by the accused up to point 'D'. The I.O. has taken samples of plain and blood stained earth as also the blood stained piece of brick from this place as well. Since the deceased had already died, so it was not possible that any ante-mortem injury could be caused to him after his death. Thus, we find that there is no inconsistency between the ocular evidence and medical evidence adduced in the case, rather they corroborate and compliment each other. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly argued that the investigation in the case has not been fair; it is tainted and the police official who has performed on the cadaver of the deceased had not been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that the factum of recovery aari and baghari do not find place in the inquest report and they have not been produced before the Court. He further submitted that the factum of recovery aari and baghari do not find place in the inquest report and they have not been produced before the Court. Per contra, learned AGA has argued that the investigating officer and the police official who had taken the cadaver of the deceased for autopsy were examine by the prosecution and the defence could not show that any prejudice had been caused to the accused-appellants. S.O. Surya Devo Rai PW-5 had proved the inquest report and other related papers prepared by SI Ram Naresh Tiwari, as he was no more. The cross-examination of Sri Rai was deferred, but he could also not be produced on account of his death. The trial court has dealt with this point in detail in its judgment and has concluded that no prejudice had been caused to the defence. 17. We do agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge. PW-5 has proved the police papers prepared during investigation and they have been duly exhibited. They are admissible in evidence. No material contradiction in the testimony of witnesses of fact vis-a-vis their police statement had been brought on record, which could have been proved by the investigating officer, had he been not died. It is true that SI Ram Naresh Tiwari has not mentioned the recovery of aari in the inquest report, but this article was not recovered from near the dead body of the deceased. It was seized from the place, where the deceased was assaulted. Since aari was not recovered near the cadaver of the deceased, therefore, it was not necessary for the police official to have noted it in the inquest report. The last but one column of inquest report is meant for the property or weapon found near the dead body of the concerned deceased. As we have already seen the distance between the place of incident and recovery of dead body of the deceased is about 60-70 steps and the investigating officer has noted the articles which were found near the dead body of the deceased in the inquest report Ex. Ka-6. 18. As we have already seen the distance between the place of incident and recovery of dead body of the deceased is about 60-70 steps and the investigating officer has noted the articles which were found near the dead body of the deceased in the inquest report Ex. Ka-6. 18. As regards non-production of material exhibits in the Court or not sending them for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, the case of prosecution cannot be thrown away merely because of such omissions and lapses on the part of the I.O. or the prosecution when its case is otherwise proved by the credible and cogent evidence of the eye witnesses. We are fortified in this observations by the cases of State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh, 2005( 7) SCC 408 and Dhanaj Singh vs. State of Punjab, ( 2004) 3 SCC 654 . Thus, all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants about alleged unfair or tainted investigation have no force and are rejected. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against each appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly found them guilty. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the appellants and sentence awarded to each of them are confirmed. The appellants are on bail. Steps should immediately be taken to send them to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 20. Let certified copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh and the Court concerned for ensuring compliance, which should be reported within 6-weeks.