JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan, J. 1. Accused appellants Bhagwan Singh, Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji have filed this appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 10.12.1987 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Session Trial No. 452 of 1986, State v. Bhagwan Singh and two others under sections 302 and 302/34I.P.C., P.S. Kasganj, District Etah, whereby learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused appellant Bhagwan Singh for offence punishable under section302 I.P.C. and accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced accused appellant Bhagwan Singh to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. During pendency of appeal accused appellant Bhagwan Singh died. Appeal abated in respect of him. 2. Sri Jai Narain, learned Counsel appeared for appellants No. 2 and 3. Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for respondent State. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. According to F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 prosecution case is that ten months before the occurrence accused Bhagwan Singh had enticed away Smt. Morshree wife of complainant Durga Prasad and two or three months before occurrence he wanted to reside in the village alongwith Morshree wife of complainant. Complainant raised objection, on account of which accused Bhagwan Singh felt annoyed and began to keep animosity with complainant Durga Prasad. As a precautionary measure police of P.S. Kasganj challenged complainant and accused Bhagwan Singh even then accused Bhagwan Singh was rigid to live in village with Morshree wife of complainant Durga Prasad but complainant told him that he shall oppose till he is alive. 5. According to the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 on 15.8.1986 at about 3.00 a.m. complainant Durga Prasad was sleeping in his house on the cot of his brother Govind Ram and his brother Govind Ram was sleeping on his cot. The Lantern was burning. Accused Bhagwan Singh, Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji were seen coming in the chauk of house. Feeling movement of accused appellants Kiran Devi, the niece of complainant awoke. She climbed on the roof of kothari and raised alarm. The Lantern was burning. Accused Bhagwan Singh, Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji were seen coming in the chauk of house. Feeling movement of accused appellants Kiran Devi, the niece of complainant awoke. She climbed on the roof of kothari and raised alarm. Whereupon Mahtab Singh son of Dal Chandra and Naipal Singh son of Haitram neighbour of complainant came with torches. At the same time accused appellant Bhagwan Singh caused injuries to Govind Ram (deceased), brother of complainant with Garansa. Remaining two accused appellants , who are brothers of accused appellant Bhagwan Singh had lathies and they exhorted the accused appellant Bhagwan Singh to kill. All the accused threatened complainant and witnesses also and told them if they come near them, they shall also face same consequence. Thereafter, on raising alarm by complainant as well as above witnesses, all the accused went out of chauk of complainant's house. Govind Ram brother of complainant succumbed to injuries on the spot. 6. In the night due to fear of accused appellants, complainant did not go to police station, therefore, in the morning he got written First Information Report Ext. Ka-1 by Saheb Singh and presented the same in police station Kasgunj, District Etah on 15.8.1986 at 7.00 p.m.. Whereupon, Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4 was written by Head Moharrir and Crime No. 529/1986 under section 302 was registered in P.S. Kasgunj, District Etah against accused Bhagwan Singh, Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji. Thereafter inquest report of Govind Ram (deceased) was prepared and his dead body was sent for post-mortem in sealed cover after having completed other formalities. Police completed investigation in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge-sheet against Bhagwan Singh, Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, concerned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet submitted by police and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to Court of Session for trial of all accused. Whereupon S.T. No. 452/1986, State v. Bhagwan Singh and two others, under section 302 I.P.C. was registered in Session Court of District Etah. Whereupon S.T. No. 452/1986, State v. Bhagwan Singh and two others, under section 302 I.P.C. was registered in Session Court of District Etah. Later on, said Session trial was transferred to the Court of VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, who framed charge against accused Bhagwan Singh under section 302 I.P.C. and against accused Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W.-2 Kiran Devi, P.W.-3 Mahtab, P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla and P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav and closed his evidence. 8. After prosecution evidence, statements of all accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. In defence accused has adduced original will-dead dated 29.9.1986 executed by complainant Durga Prasad in favour of his wife Morshree. 9. Learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge. Etah heard the arguments of both the parties and passed impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.1987 whereby he convicted accused appellant Bhagwan Singh for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them as mentioned above. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and order passed by Trial Court is against evidence as well against law. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the whole story of prosecution is concocted and false. The witnesses of occurrence examined by prosecution are not reliable. There are material contradiction in their statements. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants contended that the prosecution has wrongly stated that Morshree wife of complainant Durga Prasad had been enticed away by accused Bhagwan Singh. Truth is that she was living with complainant Durga Prasad and complainant Durga Prasad has made a Will in her favour after this occurrence, thus, the motive of occurrence alleged by prosecution is false and whole story of prosecution is unreliable. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants contended that in the dark night Govind Ram has been murdered by some unknown persons and the accused appellants have been falsely implicated due to animosity. 14. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants contended that in the dark night Govind Ram has been murdered by some unknown persons and the accused appellants have been falsely implicated due to animosity. 14. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants prayed that the appeal should be allowed and all the accused appellants should be acquitted. 15. Learned A.G.A. contended that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. 16. Learned A.G.A. contended that the judgment and order of Trial Court is based on evidence and is accordance with law. There is no sufficient ground for interference in appeal. 17. Learned A.G.A. prayed that the appeal should be dismissed. 18. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties. 19. Out of five witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and P.W.-3 Mahtab are witnesses of fact. P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla is the doctor who has conducted post-mortem of deceased Govind Ram, brother of complainant and P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav is the Investigating Officer. 20. P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad has proved F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 and in his statement on oath he has supported version of F.I.R. in toto. 21. P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad has stated that he had shown the Lantern to Investigating Officer, who has given the Lantern in his supurdagi and prepared Memo Ext. Ka-2. 22. P.W.-2 Smt. Kiran Devi has stated in her statement that one year and two and half months have passed since murder of her Mama Govind Ram. On that day she was sleeping in Courtyard. Her Mamas Govind Ram and Durga Prasad were also sleeping in Courtyard. She has stated that at about 3.00 a.m. in the night accused Abhai Pal alias Om Pal, Babuji and Bhagwan Singh came. Feeling their movement, she awoke up. At that time Lantern was burning in her house. She climbed on the roof and raised alarm. She has further stated that accused Bhagwan Singh was armed with Gandasa and accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal were armed with lathies. She has identified all the three accused in Court. 23. P.W.-2 Smt. Kiran Devi has further stated in her statement that accused Bhagwan Singh gave blow of Gandasa to Govind Ram and remaining accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal exhorted to kill him. 24. She has identified all the three accused in Court. 23. P.W.-2 Smt. Kiran Devi has further stated in her statement that accused Bhagwan Singh gave blow of Gandasa to Govind Ram and remaining accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal exhorted to kill him. 24. P.W.-2 Smt. Kiran Devi has stated in her statement that on raising alarm P.W.-3 Mahtab came with torch and witness Naipal Singh came on the roof on the same place where P.W.-2 Smt. Kiran Devi was. P.W.-2 Smt. Kiran Devi has stated in her statement that accused threatened them and told them if they came down from the roof, they shall face the same consequence. Thereafter, they ran away. 25. P.W.-3 Mahtab has also stated in his statement that about one year and two and half months have passed since the murder of Govind Ram. He has stated that on alarm raised by Smt. Kiran Devi, complainant Durga Prasad and Naipal Singh, he rushed to the door of complainant Durga Prasad with torch and lathi. He lighted torch and saw accused Bhagwan Singh armed with Gandasa and accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal armed with lathies. 26. P.W.-3 Mahtab has further stated that accused Bhagwan Singh had committed murder of Govind Ram with Gandasa and rest accused Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji were saying 27. P.W.-3 Mahtab has stated in his statement that Lantern was hanging on. He went into the house of complainant after all the accused have run away. He saw, the neck of Govind Ram had been cut. Smt. Kiran Devi, Durga Prasad and Naipal Singh were raising alarm on the roof. 28. P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla has stated in his statement that on 15.8.1986 he was Medical Officer in District Hospital, Etah. On that day at about 4.45 p.m. He conducted post-mortem of dead body of deceased Govind Ram. The dead body was brought for postmortem in sealed cover by Constable 701 Omlakha Singh and Constable 527 Dharm Singh. 29. P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla has proved post-mortem report of deceased Govind Ram Ext. Ka-3 in accordance with law. 30. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav has stated in his statement that on 15.8.1986 to 13.9.1986 he was posted in P.S. Kasgunj, District Etah as S.S.I. Present crime was registered in his presence on 15.8.1986. He has proved Chik F.I.R. Ext. 29. P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla has proved post-mortem report of deceased Govind Ram Ext. Ka-3 in accordance with law. 30. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav has stated in his statement that on 15.8.1986 to 13.9.1986 he was posted in P.S. Kasgunj, District Etah as S.S.I. Present crime was registered in his presence on 15.8.1986. He has proved Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4 and copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext. Ka-5 as a secondary witness. He has stated that he has prepared inquest report of dead body of deceased Govind Ram after having appointed panchas. 31. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav has stated in his statement that he has sent the dead body of deceased Govind Ram in sealed cover through Constable Dharm Singh and Omlakha Singh for post-mortem. 32. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav has proved inquest report of deceased Govind Ram Ext. Ka-6, Challan Nash Ext. Ka-7, Photo Nash Ext. Ka-8, sample of seal Ext. Ka.-9 and letter to Chief Medical Officer Ext. Ka-10. 33. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav has stated in his statement that on pointing out of complainant he inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-11. He recovered blood stained bandh of cot, blood stained earth and simple earth from the place of occurrence and sealed them. He has proved memos of blood stained bandh and blood stained earth and plain earth Ext. Ka-12 and Ext. Ka-13. He has further stated in his statement that he has seen the Lantern which was burning at the time of occurrence and prepared Fard supurdagi Ext. Ka.-2. He has stated that he has taken in possession torches of Mahtab and Naipal Singh and has given in their supurdagi. He has proved memo Ext. Ka-14. 34. In defence accused has filed original copy of Will-dead executed by complainant Durga Prasad in favour of his wife Morshree on 29.9.1986 and has got it proved through cross-examination by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad. Exhibit Kha-1 has been marked on it by Trial Court. 35. We have examined the evidence adduced by the parties carefully. 36. In F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 motive of occurrence has been alleged by complainant that about ten months before the occurrence accused Bhagwan Singh had enticed away Smt. Morshree wife of complainant Durga Prasad and two or three months before occurrence he wanted to reside in the village alongwith Morshree wife of complainant. 36. In F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 motive of occurrence has been alleged by complainant that about ten months before the occurrence accused Bhagwan Singh had enticed away Smt. Morshree wife of complainant Durga Prasad and two or three months before occurrence he wanted to reside in the village alongwith Morshree wife of complainant. Complainant raised objection, on account of which accused Bhagwan Singh felt annoyed and began to keep animosity with complainant Durga Prasad. P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad has supported the above version of F.I.R. in his statement on oath. 37. According to prosecution target was complainant Durga Prasad but injuries were caused to Govind Ram (deceased) by mistake presuming him to be complainant Durga Prasad. 38. Defence has filed original copy of Will-deed executed by complainant Durga Prasad in favour of Morshree on 29.9.1986. In cross-examination P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad denied that he has made a Will-deed in favour of Morshree after occurrence but when said Will-deed was shown to him, he admitted that it bears his signature. He also admitted that P.W.-3 Mahtab has also put his thumb impression on it. Thus, the said Will-deed has been proved by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, therefore, Ext. Kha-1 has been marked on it by Trial Court. By this Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 defence wants to show that the motive of occurrence alleged by complainant is false and the story of enticing away of Morshree wife of complainant by accused Bhagwan Singh is against truth. 39. We have considered the contention of accused appellants. Will-dead Ext. Kha-1 is dated 29.9.1986 and it has been executed by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad in favour of his wife Morshree. In recital of Will-deed, it has been mentioned by complainant that his wife Smt. Morshree is doing his service. He is happy with her service. In cross-examination P.W.-1 complainant has said that he has not written cause for Will that his wife does his service. This statement of P.W.-1 complainant is against recital of Ext. Kha-1 but on this ground no adverse inference may be drawn against P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad or prosecution. 40. Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 has been executed by complainant Durga Prasad in favour of Morshree on 29.9.1986 after present occurrence and after alleged occurrence of enticing away of his wife Morshree, therefore, Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 may be an allurement for Morshree to induce her to come back with his husband complainant Durga Prasad. 40. Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 has been executed by complainant Durga Prasad in favour of Morshree on 29.9.1986 after present occurrence and after alleged occurrence of enticing away of his wife Morshree, therefore, Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 may be an allurement for Morshree to induce her to come back with his husband complainant Durga Prasad. Therefore, on the basis of Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 it may not be said that the version of prosecution regarding enticing away of Morshree wife of complainant by accused Bhagwan Singh is false and concocted. No one shall make such allegation against his wife without base. Therefore, considering whole evidence on record and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the version of prosecution regarding enticing away of Morshree wife of complainant by accused Bhagwan Singh is reliable and Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 adds reliability to prosecution version in this respect. Accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji are brothers of accused Bhagwan Singh, therefore, cause of occurrence alleged by prosecution appears reasonable. Moreover, motive is irrelevant if evidence of eye witnesses is trust-worthy as Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Bramha Swarup and others v. State of U.P., 2010 (71) ACC 975 (SC) 41. Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4 shows that First Information Report Ext. Ka-1 has been presented by complainant Durga Prasad in P.S. Kasgunj, District Etah on 15.8.1986 at 7.25 A.M. The distance of place of occurrence from police station is two and half miles and the date and time of occurrence is 15.8.1986 at 3.00 a.m. In F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 it has been specifically mentioned that complainant did not go to police station in night due to fear of accused. 42. Inquest report of deceased Govind Ram Ext. Ka-6 was prepared on 15.8.1986 at 12.00 noon and postmortem of deceased Govind Ram had been conducted by P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla on the same day on 15.8.1986 at about 4.45 p.m. as is apparent from the statement of P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla as well as post-mortem report of deceased Govind Ram Ext. Ka-3. Therefore, considering the Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4, copy of G.D. of registration of crime Ext. Ka-5 as well as inquest report Ext. Kha-6 and post-mortem report Ext. Ka-3 it is apparent that F.I.R. has been lodged promptly on the day of occurrence without unnecessary delay. 43. According to F.I.R. Ext. Ka-3. Therefore, considering the Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4, copy of G.D. of registration of crime Ext. Ka-5 as well as inquest report Ext. Kha-6 and post-mortem report Ext. Ka-3 it is apparent that F.I.R. has been lodged promptly on the day of occurrence without unnecessary delay. 43. According to F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 accused Bhagwan Singh caused injuries to Govind Ram with Gandasa and his brothers accused Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji were armed with lathies but they did not cause any injury to Govind Ram, only they made exhortation. This version of F.I.R. has been supported by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad and P.W.-2 Kiran Devi. P.W.-3 Mahtab has stated in his statement that in night at about 3.00 a.m. on raising alarm by Kiran Devi, Durga Prasad and Naipal, he went to the door of complainant Durga Prasad with lathi and torch. He lighted torch and saw accused Bhagwan Singh had Gandasa in his hand and accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal had lathies in their hands. P.W.-3 Mahtab has stated that accused Bhagwan Singh had murdered Govind Ram with Gandasa. Statement of P.W.-3 shows that he has not seen actual assault caused by accused but he has seen the accused at the time of occurrence and at that time accused Bhagwan Singh was armed with Gandasa and rest of two accused were armed with lathies. Thus, the statement of P.W.-3 Mahtab also supports the statements of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad and P.W.-2 Kiran Devi, P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad is the brother of deceased Govind Ram and P.W.-2 Kiran Devi is the niece of complainant Durga Prasad and deceased Govind Ram. Both has stated in their statements on oath that they were sleeping on different cots in the same house in which deceased Govind Ram was sleeping at the time of occurrence. 44. Site plan Ext. Ka-11 prepared by I.O. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav also shows that complainant Durga Prasad, his brother Govind Ram (deceased) and P.W.-2 Kiran Devi were sleeping in the same house. There were three cots, one cot of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, one cot of P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and one cot of Govind Ram (deceased). 45. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi has stated in her cross-examination that there was no lady in the house of his maternal uncle at the time of occurrence. Her maternal uncle had called her for making food. There were three cots, one cot of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, one cot of P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and one cot of Govind Ram (deceased). 45. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi has stated in her cross-examination that there was no lady in the house of his maternal uncle at the time of occurrence. Her maternal uncle had called her for making food. After having considered the whole facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, presence of P.W. 1 complainant Durga Prasad as well as P.W.-2 Kiran Devi at the time of occurrence may not be doubted and both these witnesses appears to be natural witness of the occurrence. 46. In F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 it has been mentioned that feeling movement of accused appellants, Kiran Devi, the niece of complainant climbed on roof of kothari and raised alarm. P.W.-1 Durga Prasad has stated in his statement that when accused came in his house, his niece Kiran Devi was awaking. She saw Gandasa in hand of accused Bhagwan Singh, she climbed on the roof of kothari and raised alarm. P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad has stated in his statement that he also climbed on the roof and raised alarm. He has further stated that from the roof he saw accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal had lathies in their hands while accused Bhagwan Singh had Gandasa. P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad has stated that accused Bhagwan Singh caused injuries to his brother with Gandasa and accused Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji were making exhortation. He has stated in his statement that on raising alarm by him P.W.-3 Mahtab came on the spot and saw the occurrence in the light of torch. P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad has further stated in his statement that his neighbour Naipal came on his roof. His roof is adjacent to roof of Naipal. 47. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi has also stated that when accused came, she awoke and climbed on the roof and raised alarm. She has stated that accused Bhagwan Singh had Gandasa and accused Babuji and Abhai Pal alias Om Pal had lathies. 48. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi has stated that accused Bhagwan Singh has caused injuries to Govind Ram with Gandasa and rest two accused were making exhortation. She has also stated that on alarm being raised by them, witness P.W.-3 Mahtab came with lathi and torch and witness Naipal came on roof. 48. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi has stated that accused Bhagwan Singh has caused injuries to Govind Ram with Gandasa and rest two accused were making exhortation. She has also stated that on alarm being raised by them, witness P.W.-3 Mahtab came with lathi and torch and witness Naipal came on roof. Thus, the version of F.I.R. Regarding occurrence is fully supported by statements of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad and P.W.-2 Kiran Devi. There appears no material contradiction in their statements to discard their testimonies. Minor contradiction in statements of witnesses is natural because of manner of expression and quality of memory. 49. In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others. 2011 (72) ACC 519 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court held that," the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole." 50. In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, "The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." 51. In the case of Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri. 2012 (77) ACC 251 (SC) : 2012 (113) AIC 160 Hon'ble Apex Court held, that "minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person. 52. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the testimonies of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and P.W.-3 Mahtab. 53. P.W.-3 Mahtab is the attesting witness of Will-deed Ext. Kha-1 executed by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad in favour of his wife Morshree. On this ground, it may be said that P.W.-3 Mahtab is the person interested in complainant but merely on this ground testimony of P.W.-3 Mahtab may not be disbelieved. 54. In the case of Vithal v. State of Maharashtra. 2009 (67) ACC 455 (SC) : (2008) 1 SCC Crl. On this ground, it may be said that P.W.-3 Mahtab is the person interested in complainant but merely on this ground testimony of P.W.-3 Mahtab may not be disbelieved. 54. In the case of Vithal v. State of Maharashtra. 2009 (67) ACC 455 (SC) : (2008) 1 SCC Crl. 91 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the testimony of mother of deceased should not be discarded on the ground that she is an interested witness." 55. In the case of Kapildeo Mandal and others v. State of Bihar, 2007 (Suppl.) ACC 518 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The credibility of a witness cannot be judged merely on the basis of his close relation with the deceased and as such cannot be a ground to discard his testimony, if it otherwise inspires confidence." 56. P.W.-3 Mahtab has stated in cross-examination at page-3 (Page 26 of Paper book) that in between his house and house of Durga Prasad, there are houses of Laturi and Naipal. Thus, it is apparent that the house of P.W.-3 Mahtab is situated near house of complainant Durga Prasad after two houses of other persons. Thus, P.W.-3 Mahtab is also a witness of locality and as mentioned above P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad and P.W.-2 Kiran Devi were sleeping in the same house in which deceased Govind Ram was sleeping and they are natural witnesses of occurrence. Therefore, considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the testimonies of these witnesses may not be discarded only on the ground of relationship. 57. According to F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 at the time of occurrence there was burning Lantern and P.W.-3 Mahtab came with torch and saw the occurrence in the light of torch. According to F.I.R. Witness Naipal had also torch. 58. I.O. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav has stated on oath that he had seen Lantern of complainant and prepared Fard Ext. Ka-2. He has further stated that he had seen the torches of Naipal and Mahtab and prepared Fard of those torches Ext. Ka-14. Ext. Ka-2 shows that I.O. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav had seen the Lantern of complainant and gave it in his supurdgi. Similarly Ext. Ka-14 memo of torches shows that I.O. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav had seen torches of witnesses Naipal and Mahtab and gave it in their supurdgi. Ka-14. Ext. Ka-2 shows that I.O. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav had seen the Lantern of complainant and gave it in his supurdgi. Similarly Ext. Ka-14 memo of torches shows that I.O. P.W.-5 S.I. Sher Singh Yadav had seen torches of witnesses Naipal and Mahtab and gave it in their supurdgi. The source of light alleged by prosecution has been proved by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W-2 Kiran Devi and P.W.-3 Mahtab also. Therefore, we are of the view that source of light alleged by prosecution is proved. 59. In F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 it has not been mentioned that complainant Durga Prasad also climbed on the roof and raised alarm from that place, while in his statement before the Court he has stated that his niece Kiran Devi climbed on the roof and raised alarm from that place. He also climbed on the roof and raised alarm from that place. Statement made by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad before the Trial Court is not inconsistent with the version of F.I.R. In F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 also he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping in his house on cot and has seen the occurrence. Minute to minute detail many not be given in F.I.R. 60. In the case of State of M.P. v. Mishri Lal, 2003 (46) ACC 881 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court held that mentioning of all the details of occurrence in the F.I.R. is not necessary. 61. In the case of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, 1998 (36) ACC 608 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court held that non-mentioning of the details and particulars in the F.I.R. is not the ground to reject the prosecution case. 62. Therefore, in view of above, we are of the view that there is no contradiction in version of F.I.R. and statement of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad. 63. Suggestion has been given by defence to P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad that complainant has committed murder of his brother Govind Ram for getting his properties. This suggestion has been denied by P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi is niece of deceased Govind Ram and complainant Durga Prasad both. She has supported version of prosecution. Defence has not given suggestion to her that Govind Ram has been murdered by complainant himself and there is nothing on record to support this suggestion of defence. 64. Perusal of post-mortem report Ext. P.W.-2 Kiran Devi is niece of deceased Govind Ram and complainant Durga Prasad both. She has supported version of prosecution. Defence has not given suggestion to her that Govind Ram has been murdered by complainant himself and there is nothing on record to support this suggestion of defence. 64. Perusal of post-mortem report Ext. Ka-3 as well as statement of P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla shows that four ante mortem incised wounds were found on the dead body of Govind Ram. Incised wound may be caused by Gandasa, which is a sharp edged weapon. Thus version of prosecution as well as statements of witnesses of occurrence namely P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and P.W.-3 Mahtab are corroborated by medical evidence. Time of occurrence is also corroborated by post-mortem report Ext. Ka-3 and statement of P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla. 65. Version of prosecution and statements of above witnesses of occurrence are also corroborated by Site plan Ext. Ka-11. 66. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and P.W.-3 Mahtab are trustworthy witnesses. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve them. 67. Trial Court has considered the statements of witnesses and all aspects of case and in view of conclusion drawn above has rightly placed reliance on evidence adduced by prosecution. 68. It is apparent from the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Durga Prasad, P.W.-2 Kiran Devi and P.W.-3 Mahtab that accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji came in the house of complainant Durga Prasad armed with lathies alongwith accused Bhagwan Singh who was armed with Gandasa and at the same time accused Bhagwan Singh caused injuries to deceased Govind Ram with Gandasa in presence of appellants accused Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji, who also shared the act of accused Bhagwan Singh by making exhortation. 69. P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla has stated in his statement that ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of Govind Ram was sufficient to cause death. 70. 69. P.W.-4 Dr. K.N. Shukla has stated in his statement that ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of Govind Ram was sufficient to cause death. 70. After having considered whole evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to convict accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. Therefore, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly convicted these accused appellants for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. 71. State has not filed any appeal for enhancement of sentence and the sentence awarded by Trial Court is not excessive. 72. In view of above, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 73. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Accused appellants Abhai Pal alias Om Pal and Babuji are on bail. They shall surrender before Trial Court within 30 days from the date of this judgment for serving sentence awarded to them, failing which Trial Court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them jail for serving sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to Trial Court for securing compliance. Send back records of Trial Court immediately.