Akhtar Husain Khan, J. Accused Habib, Kaluwa and Malwa has filed this appeal under Section 374 ( 2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 16.11.1987 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 51 of 1987 State Vs. Habib and Others, under Sections 302, 307/34 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar, whereby VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar has convicted accused-appellants Habib, Kaluwa and Malwa for offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. with life imprisonment and for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for four years. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate appeared on behalf of State. Accused-appellant Habib is reported dead. Appeal abated in respect of him. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A.G.A. for respondent-State. We have perused the records of the case also. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted learned A.G.A. 3. In brief, according to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 version of prosecution is that complainant Sharif and accused-appellant Habib are neighbours and the sons of accused-appellant Habib have animosity with complainant. A year before present occurrence, Ateek cousin brother of complainant Sharif was abducted by accused Habib and his sons. In this context a day before occurrence, in the evening accused Kaluwa and Malwa both sons of accused Habib asked the parents of complainant Sharif to reimburse expenses incurred by them in the case of abduction of said cousin brother of complainant. At that time, they also threatened to kill parents of complainant. They became naked before mother of complainant and abused her. Family members of complainant intervened and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, next day on 13.12.1986 at 07:30 a.m. when Rashid, father of complainant was going to purchase biddi and matches and as soon as he came out his house accused-appellant Habib and his sons accused-appellants Kaluwa and Malwa caught hold of him. Family members of complainant intervened and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, next day on 13.12.1986 at 07:30 a.m. when Rashid, father of complainant was going to purchase biddi and matches and as soon as he came out his house accused-appellant Habib and his sons accused-appellants Kaluwa and Malwa caught hold of him. Thereafter, accused-appellant Habib exhorted whereupon accused-appellants Kaluwa and Malwa caused injuries with knife to Rashid, father of complainant, Rashid, father of complainant fell down due to injuries. Complainant Sharif and his younger brother also suffered injuries of knife and bricks in rescue of his father. On raising alarm, mother of complainant, Mohammad Yasin elder father of complainant, Chanda S/o Raheem and Abdul Salam S/o of Haji Ismaeel came on spot. Thereafter, complainant Sharif brought his injured father to hospital but as soon as he reached hospital his father succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, leaving dead body of his father complainant Sharif went to Police Station Sikandarabad and submitted written report Exhibit Ka.01 in Sikandarabad. 4. On the basis of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 submitted by complainant Sharif chik F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.14 was written by Head Moharrir on 13.12.1986 at 09:05 a.m. and Crime No. 485 of 1986, under Sections 302/307/336 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar against accused Habib, Kaluwa and Malwa. Thereafter, inquest report of deceased Abdul Rashid was prepared and dead body of deceased was sent for post mortem in sealed cover after having completed other formalities. Investigation was made by police and after having completed investigation charge sheet was submitted by police against accused-appellants Habib, Kaluwa and Malwa for offences punishable under Section 302 /34, 307, 336 I.P.C. whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial of all accused. Thereafter, S.T. No. 51 of 1987 State Vs. Habib and Others was registered in Sessions Court of District Bulandshahar. Later on, said Sessions Trial was transferred to the Court of VIIth Additional Sessions Judge who framed charges against all accused for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined PW1 complainant Sharif, PW2 Chanda, PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary, PW4 S.I. Ram Bahadur Sharma, PW5 Dr. 5. Prosecution examined PW1 complainant Sharif, PW2 Chanda, PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary, PW4 S.I. Ram Bahadur Sharma, PW5 Dr. P.L. Sharma, PW6 S.S.I. Rishipal Singh and PW7 Constable Mainpal Singh to prove the charges levelled against all accused. 6. After prosecution evidence statements of all accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of them stated that they have falsely been implicated due to animosity. They have also stated that witnesses of prosecution are relatives. Accused-appellants have adduced no evidence in defence. 7. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgement and order dated 17.11.1987, and convicted and sentenced accused-appellants as mentioned above. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the judgement and order of Trial Court is against evidence on record. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further contended that neither offence under Section 302 I.P.C. nor offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-appellants on the facts and circumstances of the case alleged by prosecution. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants prayed that appeal should be allowed and the accused-appellants should be acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. 11. Learned A.G.A. contended that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold the accused-appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. contended that judgement and order of Trial Court is in accordance with law and based on evidence. There is no sufficient ground to interfere in the judgement of Trial Court. 12. Learned A.G.A. prayed that appeal should be dismissed. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of seven witnesses examined by the prosecution before Trial Court, PW1 Mohammad Sharif and PW2 Chanda are witnesses of fact and occurrence. Both have supported the version of F.I.R. regarding occurrence. PW1 complainant Mohammad Sharif has proved F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 also. PW1 Sharif is complainant and injured. 14. Perusal of chik F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.14 as well as copy of G.D. Of entry relating to registration of present crime Exhibit Ka.15 shows that the report has been lodged by PW1 complainant Sharif in P.S. Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar on 13.12.1986 at 09:05 a.m. within 1:35 hour after occurrence. Thus it is apparent that F.I.R. been has lodged by complainant Sharif promptly without any delay. 15. Thus it is apparent that F.I.R. been has lodged by complainant Sharif promptly without any delay. 15. Perusal of injury report of PW1 complainant Sharif Exhibit Ka.02 as well as statement of PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary shows that PW1 complainant Sharif was brought for medical examination by Constable 682 Sri Omendra Singh and medical examination of PW1 complainant Mohammad Sharif was conducted by PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary on 13.12.1986 at 11:00 a.m. On medical examination one lacerated wound and two abrasions were found on his body. 16. Perusal of statement of PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary as well as injury report of Inaam, youger brother of complainant Exhibit Ka.03 shows that he was also brought for medical examination by aforesaid constable and his medical examination was conducted by PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary on 13.12.1986 at 11:10 a.m. On medical examination one incised wound and two abrasions were found on his body. 17. According to statement of PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary and injury reports of above injured Exhibit Ka.02 and Ka.03, the injuries of PW1 complainant Sharif and Inaam were found fresh at the time of medical examination. Thus it is apparent that the medical examination of both injured have also been conducted without delay. 18. PW2 Chanda is a witness named in F.I.R. PW1 complainant Sharif has stated on oath in his statement also that PW2 Chanda has seen the occurrence. PW2 Chanda has also stated in his statement on oath that he was passing through the street at the time of occurrence. He has seen the occurrence. There is no sufficient ground to deny the presence of PW2 Chanda at the time of occurrence. Considering the prompt F.I.R. and prompt medical examination of PW1 complainant Sharif and his younger brother Inaam, we are of the view that there is no chance of concoction. 19. We have perused the statements of PW1 complainant Sharif and PW2 Chanda. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has failed to point out any material contradiction in their statements. 20. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 accused Habib, Kaluva and Malwa caught hold of complainant father Rashid ( now deceased) and thereafter on exhortation of accused Habib, Kaluva and Malwa caused injuries to Rashid with knife when the complainant Sharif and his younger brother tried to save their father they caused them injuries with bricks and knife. 20. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 accused Habib, Kaluva and Malwa caught hold of complainant father Rashid ( now deceased) and thereafter on exhortation of accused Habib, Kaluva and Malwa caused injuries to Rashid with knife when the complainant Sharif and his younger brother tried to save their father they caused them injuries with bricks and knife. This version of F.I.R. has been fully supported by PW1 complainant Sharif and PW2 Chanda. 21. Perusal of statement of PW5 Dr. P.L. Sharma as well as post mortem report of Rashid Exhibit Ka.09 shows that six anti mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Rashid ( deceased), out of six anti mortem injuries two injuries were lacerated wound, two injuries were incised wound and two injuries were abrasion. 22. Perusal of statement of PW5 Dr. P.L. Sharma as well as post mortem report Exhibit Ka.09 shows that the post mortem of deceased Rashid was conducted on 13.10.1986 at 4:00 p.m. and the time of death is about 1/4th day. Thus statement of PW5 Dr. P.L. Sharma as well as post mortem report Exhibit Ka.09 fully corroborates the version of prosecution. It is apparent from F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 and statements of PW1 complainant Sharif and PW2 Chanda that bricks have also been used by accused and Rashid, father of complainant fell down after having injuries. Lacerated wound may be caused by bricks, abrasion may be caused by friction of earth, therefore, considering all aspects and circumstances of the case we are of the view that there is no contradiction between the ocular evidence and post mortem report Exhibit Ka.09. 23. PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary has stated in his statement that injury no. 1 of Inaam may be caused by knife and his injury nos. 2 and 3 may be caused by bricks or lathi. He has further stated that all injuries of PW1 complainant Mohammad Sharif may be caused by bricks. Thus it is apparent that version of prosecution is fully corroborated by statement of PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary as well as injury reports Exhibit Ka.02 and Ka.03. 24. 2 and 3 may be caused by bricks or lathi. He has further stated that all injuries of PW1 complainant Mohammad Sharif may be caused by bricks. Thus it is apparent that version of prosecution is fully corroborated by statement of PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary as well as injury reports Exhibit Ka.02 and Ka.03. 24. Perusal of inquest report Exhibit Ka.04 shows that inquest report has been completed on 13.12.1986 at 12:15 a.m. and in inquest report Crime No. 485 of 1986, under Sections 302, 307, 336 I.P.C. has been mentioned, thus inquest report Exhibit Ka.04 also corroborates the fact that F.I.R. has been lodged promptly at the time alleged by prosecution. 25. Perusal of site plan Exhibit Ka.10 as well as statement of PW6 S.S.I. Rishipal Singh corroborates the place of occurrence alleged by prosecution. 26. PW7 Constable 1174 Mainpal Singh has stated in his statement that on 13.12.1986 he was handed over dead body of deceased Rashid in sealed cover by PW4 S.I. Ram Bahadur Sharma and he brought the dead body in sealed cover to post mortem house. The dead body remained in sealed cover till he handed over it for post mortem. 27. After having gone through whole evidence on record, we find that presence of PW1 complainant Sharif and PW2 Chanda at the time of occurrence is proved beyond doubt and their statements regarding occurrence are supported by medical evidence as well as by inquest report Exhibit Ka.04 and site plan Exhibit Ka.10. There is no ground to disbelieve them. 28. In the case of Mahesh S/o Janardhan Gonnade Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008( 2) Supreme 898 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "an eye-witness, who received injuries in the occurrence, if found to be trustworthy of belief, cannot be discarded merely for non-examination of the independent witnesses." There is nothing on record to show that PW2 Chanda is relative of PW1 complainant Sharif. More over testimony of relative witness may not be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram ( 2004) 8 SCC 660 Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The law on the point is well settled that the testimony of the relative witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. The only main requirement is to examine their testimony with caution. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram ( 2004) 8 SCC 660 Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The law on the point is well settled that the testimony of the relative witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. The only main requirement is to examine their testimony with caution. Their testimony was thrown out at the threshold on the ground of animosity and relationship. This is not a requirement of law." 29. As discussed above witnesses PW1 complainant Sharif and PW2 Chanda are trustworthy witnesses, therefore, non-examination of other witnesses may not adversely effect credibility of these two witnesses. 30. Learned Trial Court has discussed the evidence available on record in detail and has made legal analysis of evidence available on record. 31. In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon statement of witnesses examined by prosecution to convict accused-appellants. 32. Now we have to see as to whether on the facts alleged by prosecution offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. are made out. 33. It is apparent from post mortem report Exhibit Ka.09 as well as statement of PW5 Dr. P.L. Sharma that out of six ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of deceased Rashid, two injuries were incised wounds and out of these two incised wounds, one incised wound which is injury no. 3 of post mortem report Exhibit Ka.09 was on chest which is the vital part of body. PW5 Dr. P.L. Sharma has specifically stated in his statement that injury no. 3 of deceased Rashid was sufficient to cause death in natural course. Therefore, we are of the view that the case is fully covered with secondly of Section 300 of Indian Panel Code. 34. Perusal of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 as well as statements of PW1 Sharif and PW2 Chanda shows that the accused Habib, Kaluva and Malwa caught hold of Rashid, father of complainant and at the same time accused Habib exhorted, whereupon accused Kaluva and Malwa caused injuries to Rashid with knife. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is proved that in furtherance of common intention of all accused Kaluva and Malwa caused injuries to Rashid with knife. Above injury no. 3 of deceased Rashid, may be caused by knife. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is proved that in furtherance of common intention of all accused Kaluva and Malwa caused injuries to Rashid with knife. Above injury no. 3 of deceased Rashid, may be caused by knife. Therefore, evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused-appellants Kaluva and Malwa guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 35. In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly held accused-appellants Kaluva and Malwa guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 36. perusal of statement of PW3 Dr. S.R. Chaudhary as well as injury reports of complainant Sharif and his younger brother Inaam Exhibit Ka.02 and Ka.03 respectively shows that one lacerated wound and two abrasions were found on the body of complainant Sharif while one incised wound and two abrasions were found on the body of Inaam, younger brother of complainant Sharif. All the injuries of both injured are simple in nature. Injury no. 1 incised wound of Inaam is on left hand above 4 c.m. from wrist joint, which is not a vital part of body. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries of complainant sharif and his younger brother Inaam as well as whole evidence and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is not made out against accused-appellants. Only offences punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. are made against accused-appellants for causing injuries to complainant Sharif and his younger brother Inaam. 37. In view of above, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court against accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. should be modified and accused-appellants should be held guilty for offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Therefore, judgement and order of Trial Court is modified accordingly and accused-appellants are held guilty for offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of two years for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 38. In view of above, appeal is liable to be allowed in part regarding conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Appeal is allowed accordingly. Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is modified and accused-appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of two years for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 39. Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is affirmed. 40. All sentences of accused appellants shall run concurrently. Appellants Kaluva and Malwa are on bail. They shall surrender before the Trial Court for serving sentences within 30 days from the date of judgement of this Court, failing which Trial Court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them to jail for serving sentence in accordance with law. 41. Office is directed to send copy of judgement to Trial Court for securing compliance. Send back records of Trial Court immediately.