Judgment K.J. Thaker, J.—By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated May 30, 2006, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamangar, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2005, whereby the appellants, original accused, have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short, “the IPC”), and under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For conviction under Section 147 of the IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/each and in case of default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. For conviction under Section 148 of the IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. For conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the appellants have been sentenced undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The learned trial court directed that if the fine is paid by the accused persons, the said amount be paid to the widow of the deceased by way of compensation. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The complainantSavitaben Karabhai, lodged a complaint on 24.1.2005 before City ADB Police station Jamnagar, inter alia stating that on the fateful day i.e. on 24.1.2005 she alongwith other family members had gone to attend the marriage function of daughter of her sisterinlaw, Santaben Nathabhai. On the next morning at around 5.15 a.m. her son, Nilesh was coming towards home and she was following her. It was alleged that at that time, he was attacked by five person. All these accused had caused fatal injuries to the son of the complainant and therefore, he became unconscious and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Suresh Lakhabhai, Hemant Nathlal and driver of the Rickshaw, Ashok Nathabhai took him to the G.G. Hospital, Jamanagar, but he died during the course of treatment. After necessary investigation was carried out and the appellant came to be arrested. Thereafter, Suresh Lakhabhai, Hemant Nathlal and driver of the Rickshaw, Ashok Nathabhai took him to the G.G. Hospital, Jamanagar, but he died during the course of treatment. After necessary investigation was carried out and the appellant came to be arrested. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the appropriate Court. Since the case was Sessions triable, it was committed to Sessions Court, Valsad. The appellant pleaded not guilty and therefore, charge was framed and trial was initiated. 2.1. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. Manish Jayantilal Jethwa was examined as PW1 at Exh. 26, Jayantilal Puroshottam as PW2 at Exh. 28, Nathalal Govindbhai as P.W. 3 at Exh. 30, Rajeshlal Pragjibhai as P.W. 4 at Exh. 32, Pravinbhai Babulal as P.W. 5 at Exh. 33, Jayeshbhai Mohanlal as P.W. 6 at Exh. 34, Birendra as P.W. 7 at Exh. 35, Chetan Ballavbhai as P.W. 8 Exh. 36, Dhirajlal Purushootam as P.W. 9 at Exh. 37, Pravinbhai as P.W. 10 at Exh. 38, Bhudarbhai Thovanbhai Vasani, as P.W. 11 at Exh. 44, Dr. Galirsingh Samusingh as P.W. 12 at Exh. 48, Hiteshbhai Ramniklal Bhatta as P.W. 12 at Exh. 53, Dr. Kumar Dhanjay as P.W. 14 at Exh. 56, Savitaben as P.W. 15 at Exh. 68, Prakashbhai Babulal Bhandariya as P.W. 16 at Exh. 62, Jayeshbhai Devjibhai Savariya as P.W. 17 at Exh. 73, Ashokbhai Nathbhai Sarvaiya as P.W. 18 at Exh. 76, Jentibhai Valsibhai Jethwa as P.W. 19 at Exh. 79, Jaisukhbhai Jerabhai as P.W. 20 at Exh. 80, Muljibhai Ramjibhai Parama as P.W. 21 at Exh. 87, Dr. Piyush as P.W. 22 at Exh. 95, Hareshbhai Karabhai as P.W. 23 at Exh. 98 and Vikramsinh Dasrathsinh Gohil as P.W. 24 at Exh. 99. 2.2. The prosecution had also placed reliance upon several documentary evidence, more particularly, Panchanama of scene of offence at Exh. 27, Inqeust Panchanama at Exh. 28, the Post mortem report at Exh. 52, Medical case papers at Exh. 96, report of FSL at Exh. 116 and the complaint at Exh. 69. 3. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded the further statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. 96, report of FSL at Exh. 116 and the complaint at Exh. 69. 3. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded the further statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellants and learned APP appearing for the respondent State and perused the material on record. The medical Officer who has been examined at Exh. 52 has categorically stated in his evidence that the death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock on account of head injuries and associated other body injuries. Thus, from the evidence of this witness it is established that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death. 5. It appears that the prosecution case mainly rests upon the testimony of the complaint, who also happens to be the mother of the deceased. It may be noted that as may as six witnesses viz. P.W. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 19 have turned hostile. Therefore, in order to arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused persons this Court has to carefully scrutinize the testimony of the complainant to arrive at definite conclusion regarding the presence and involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. 6. We have perused the complaint at Exh. 68 as also the testimony of the complainant before the Court below. On perusal of the complaint, we find that necessary averments regarding the presence, involvement and role played by all the accused persons except original accused No. 2 has been described in detail by the complainant. We also find that no averment whatsoever regarding the presence or involvement of original accused No. 2 has been made in the complaint. It appears that the name of the original accused No. 2 was added only at the time of recording of the examination in chief of the complainant before the Court below. 7. It is pertinent to note that even before the doctor, the name of the accused persons excluding accused No. 2 has been given. Thus, we find that the name of the accused No. 2 has been subsequently added in the complaint is an afterthought. 7. It is pertinent to note that even before the doctor, the name of the accused persons excluding accused No. 2 has been given. Thus, we find that the name of the accused No. 2 has been subsequently added in the complaint is an afterthought. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3281 and in the case of Husna and Ors. vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1996 (1) Crimes 51, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant No. 2. The apex Court in the case of Husna and Ors (Supra) in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8, has held as under: “6. As already noticed, in the FIR the names of both the appellants were found missing. They were only named in the supplementary statement of P.W. 1 recorded during the investigation and in our opinion the statement, which was recorded during the investigation was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court could not have relied upon the same as a part of the FIR. All the three appellants are brother. No overt act has been ascribed to Rupa appellant during the entire occurrence. It seems rather improbable that if P.W. 1 had allegedly snatched away a pistol from Rupa appellant before Husna fired a shot at Satish Kumar, he would not have fired the same to prevent Husna from firing the shot. Besides no empty recovered from the spot has been connected by the ballistic expert with the pistol allegedly recovered from Rupa appellant. After carefully analysing the evidence on the record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to satisfactorily establish the case against appellant Rupa beyond a reasonable doubt. The possibility that he was named being the brothers of Husna cannot be ruled out. His presence at the time of occurrence has not been satisfactorily proved. His conviction and sentence for the various offences as recorded by the trial Court therefore cannot be sustained. 7. That Satish Kumar died as a result of a fire arm injury, as found by Dr. Anup sood P.W. 7, admits of no doubt. It was neither questioned in the trial Court nor even before this Court. His conviction and sentence for the various offences as recorded by the trial Court therefore cannot be sustained. 7. That Satish Kumar died as a result of a fire arm injury, as found by Dr. Anup sood P.W. 7, admits of no doubt. It was neither questioned in the trial Court nor even before this Court. The statement of P.W. 1 to the effect that it was Husna appellant who had fired the shot at Satish Kumar inspires confidence and receives ample corroboration both from the medical evidence as well as the report of the ballistic expert, who found the empties recovered from the spot to have been fired from the weapon recovered from Husna appellant. Since, the empties had been sent to the ballistic expert much before Husna appellant was arrested and the weapon recovered from him, there is under lying assurance of the correctness of the prosecution case against him since the ballistic expert opined that the empties which had already been received by him had been fired from the weapon sent to him after the arrest of Husna appellant. The evidence on the record has thus, brought home the charge to appellant Husna beyond every reasonable doubt and his conviction and sentence for the various offences as recorded by the trial court is well meritted and call for no interference. 8. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals of Husna and Jolour Singh appellants are dismissed. The appeal of Rupa appellant is allowed and giving him the benefit of the doubt, he is acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.” 8. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, we find that the name of the original accused No. 2 has been added as an afterthought. If the accused No. 2 was actually involved in the alleged offence, then there was no reason for the complainant to not disclose his name in the FIR. We find that the name of the accused No. 2 has been added at subsequent stage as an afterthought. Therefore, the conviction of the accused No. 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 9. So far as the other accused persons are concerned we find from the testimony of P.Ws. We find that the name of the accused No. 2 has been added at subsequent stage as an afterthought. Therefore, the conviction of the accused No. 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 9. So far as the other accused persons are concerned we find from the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 19 that the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 had played active role in the entire incident, there presence and involvement is established beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant gets corroboration from documentary evidence on record in the form of discovery Panchanama prepared under Section 27 of the evidence Act. We find no reason to dispute the same inasmuch as the same has been prepared in consonance with the settled principles, as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death. The post mortem report at Exh. 52 established the death of the deceased was a homicide in nature. In column No. 17, the doctor mentioned the injuries sustained by the deceased, which are as under: (17) (1) 7.5. X 1 cm long deep chop wound seen with the left parietal region. It is lying vertically. Margins and angles are clean cut. (ii) 4 X 1 cm. contued lacerated wound seen just 2 cm. away from the wound towards the back of the head. It is lying horizontally near the left parietal region. It is long deep. (3) 5 X 0.5 c.m. entered wound seen are the left side of the forehead lying obliquely extending from left inner canthus upto the middle of the forehead. (4) 1 X 1 cm. contued lacerated wound seen over the; l right side of the middle part of the right eyebrow. It is long deep. (5) On palpation underlying bones of the would no (3) and (4) show continued between (supra – orbital bones, neral bones and maxillary bones are involved. (6) 0.5 X 0.3 cm. contoured lacerated wound seen over the root of the left ala neri. It is long deep. (7) 1.5 X 1 cm. contoured lacerated wound seen over the left side of the upper lip. Corresponding gum is also contoured. (8) 1 X 0.5 Cm. contoured lacerated wound seen over the left lower lip just apposite to wound (1). Corresponding gum is contoured. It is long deep. (7) 1.5 X 1 cm. contoured lacerated wound seen over the left side of the upper lip. Corresponding gum is also contoured. (8) 1 X 0.5 Cm. contoured lacerated wound seen over the left lower lip just apposite to wound (1). Corresponding gum is contoured. (9) 6.2 cm. chop wound seen over the front part of left chest, lying obliquely the inner angle is 2 cm. away from the mid line and 6 cm. below the level of the left nipple. The lower angle is 7 cm. away from the mid line. The underlying self tissues clean cut and it cuts the cortoehandral of the 6th rib. The cut on the cartilage has dimension of 5 X 0.1. cm. and through and through. All margins and angles clean cut. (10) 5 X 1.5 cm. chop wound seen over the left side of the chest, lying obliquely, the upper angle being 8 cm. below the level of the left nipple and 14 cm. away from the mid line. It cuts the lower border of the 6th rib and upper border of the 7th rib. Margins and angles are all clean cut. (11) 6 X 1.5 cm. elliptical shape stab wound seen over the back of the left upper part of the thigh, lying vertically, the upper end is 18 cm. below the porteca supela ilae spine. Margins and angles backwards and upwards. (12) 5 cm. long 10 cm. deep horizontal slit like stab wound seen over the back of the right thigh alay the shifted fold Margins and angles clean cut. It is directed upwards, inwards and backwards. (13) 4X 3 cm. centurion seen over the top of the head, 3 cm. along the occipital protuberance.” 10. It is also pertinent to note that the Muddamal weapons recovered, coupled with the testimony of the witnesses, proved the presence of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution has also been able to prove the aspect of motive behind the commission of the alleged offence inasmuch as it is evident from the record that prior to the incident a dispute was existing between the parties. 11. It is true that the complainant, who happens to be the mother of the deceased is eye witness to the alleged incident. 11. It is true that the complainant, who happens to be the mother of the deceased is eye witness to the alleged incident. However, merely because the complainant is a relative of the deceased, her evidence cannot be discarded. Considering the facts of the present case, it would be relevant to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. [(2003) 10 SCC 26], wherein the apex Court held that relationship is not a factor to effect the creditability of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such case, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible and therefore, the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently, being a partisan witness should not be relied upon, has no substance. 12. In the case of Shyam Babu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2012) 8 SCC 651 ], the Apex Court held that version of an eye witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that such eyewitness happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased and where presence of eye witness is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to occurrence, it will not be permissible for Court to discard statement of such related or friendly witness. It was further held that there is no bar in law on examining members of any other person as witnesses. 13. In the facts of the present case, we find that the complainant has stood a test of scrutiny in the form of cross-examination. Nothing incriminating has come out from her cross-examination, which would lead us to believe that her evidence unreliable and not trustworthy. On close scrutiny, we find that her testimony supports the prosecution case in so far as the presence, role and involvement of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, but as discussed hereinabove her evidence does not support so fas as the involvement of accused No. 2 is concerned. 14. On close scrutiny, we find that her testimony supports the prosecution case in so far as the presence, role and involvement of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, but as discussed hereinabove her evidence does not support so fas as the involvement of accused No. 2 is concerned. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed qua the appellant No. 2 Sarfaraz Hussain Jumma Kataria. The judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated May 30, 2006, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court No. 4, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2005, is quashed and set aside qua the appellant No. 2 Sarfaraz Hussain Jumma Kataria. The appellant No. 2Sarfaraz Hussain Jumma Kataria is ordered to be acquitted from all the charges qua the offence in question by giving him benefit of doubt. The fine, if any, paid by the appellant No. 2 Sarfaraz Hussain Jumma Kataria, be refunded to him on his proper identification. Since the appellant No. 2 is on bail, the bail bond as well as bail shall stand discharged. So far as the present appeal qua rest of the appellants i.e. appellant Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed. The judgement and order of conviction and sentence under challenge is confirmed qua the appellant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. However, the life would not be till last breath and their case may be considered by the appropriate authority. Bail bond and bail, if any, qua appellant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 shall stand cancelled. The R & P be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.