Judgment Prashant Kumar, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/03/2004 and 22/03/2004 respectively, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma, whereby and where under he convicted appellants under section 302/149/323 of the I.P.C. Appellant Ashok Ram has also been specifically convicted under section 302 of the I.P.C. All the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and they were further directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. However, no separate sentence was awarded to appellant Ashok Ram under section 302 of the I.P.C. Learned court below further directed that on realisation of the fine from the convicts, the same be handed over to the wife of deceased,namely, Karuna Devi towards her maintenance. 2. Sans unnecessary particular, the case of prosecution is that on 26.06.1990 at about 8 P.M., Ashok Ram, Binu Ram, Tilak Ram and Kailash Ram armed with lathi and danda came to the shop of informant and abused him and directed him to vacate the shop, otherwise he and his family members will be killed. It is further stated that when informant's uncle Shravan Kumar (deceased) forbade them, then accused persons assaulted him with lathi and danda, due to that he received injuries on his head and fell down. Thereafter, accused Binu Ram brought sword from his house and tried to assault informant's uncle with sword, but the informant intervened and caught hold the sword. Thereafter, other accused persons assaulted informant with lathi and danda, due to that he received injuries on his head. It is stated that on hulla, persons residing in the vicinity came and rescued them. It is further stated that a case is going on in between the informant and accused persons in connection with shop and because of that case present occurrence took place. 3. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid information, Koderma P.S. case no.140 of 1990 dated 26.06.1990 under sections 341/323/307/34 of the I.P.C. was instituted and police took up investigation. It then appears that all the injured were examined by P.W.1 a doctor posted in Koderma Hospital. Thereafter, doctor referred injured Shravan Kumar to Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi for better treatment, but during treatment, Shravan Kumar died on the next day. consequently, offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. was added. It then appears that all the injured were examined by P.W.1 a doctor posted in Koderma Hospital. Thereafter, doctor referred injured Shravan Kumar to Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi for better treatment, but during treatment, Shravan Kumar died on the next day. consequently, offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. was added. It appears that postmortem examination of the dead body of Shravan Kumar was held in Rajendra Medical College and Hospital on 28.06.1990. It further appears that Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused person under sections 147/148/149/302/307/323/380 of the I.P.C. Learned A.C.J.M. Koderma took cognizance of the offences. Thereafter, he committed the case to the court of Sessions, as the offences under sections 302/307 of the I.P.C. are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. 4. After receipt of the case, learned Sessions Judge transferred it in the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma vide his order dated 04.06.1998 framed charges against the accused persons under sections 302/149/323 of the I.P.C. It appears that a separate charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. framed against appellant Ashok Ram. All the charges were explained to the appellants and other accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Thereafter, prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses in support of its case. Prosecution also proved Ext.1 series ( injury report), Ext.2 ( signature of Bijay Kumar on written report), Ext.3 ( injury report), Ext.4 ( postmortem report), Ext.5 F.I.R., Ext.6 (Inquest report). After closure of the case of prosecution, statements of the appellants and other accused persons was recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C., in which their defence is of total denial. It further appears that defence had also brought on record as Ext.A- ( Injury report of Ashok Ram), Ext.B- (F.I.R. of Koderma P.S.case no. 141/90 dated 26.6.90), Ext.C- (Charge-sheet of Koderma P.S. case no.141/90), Ext.D- (Judgment of Eviction Suit No.12/92). P.C., in which their defence is of total denial. It further appears that defence had also brought on record as Ext.A- ( Injury report of Ashok Ram), Ext.B- (F.I.R. of Koderma P.S.case no. 141/90 dated 26.6.90), Ext.C- (Charge-sheet of Koderma P.S. case no.141/90), Ext.D- (Judgment of Eviction Suit No.12/92). It then appears that after considering the evidence available on the record the learned court below convicted all the appellants and co-accused, namely, Kailash Ram, Baiju Pandey under sections 302/149/323 of the I.P.C. Appellant Ashok Ram had been specifically convicted under section 302 of the I.P.C. All the appellants and co-convicts had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences under sections 302/149 of the I.P.C. However, no separate sentence awarded to Ashok Ram under section 302 of the I.P.C. Likewise no sentence awarded to the appellants and other co-convicts under section 323 of the I.P.C. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, present appeals filed. 6. Heard Sri A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 606 of 2004 and Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No.763 of 2004. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the instant case, all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other. It is further submitted that it is an admitted position that appellants are in litigating terms with informant's family in connection with eviction of shop in question. It is then submitted that there are vital contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that P.W.1 who is doctor has examined appellant Ashok Ram on the date of occurrence itself at about 8 p.m. and found grievous injuries on the person of Ashok Ram. It is submitted that prosecution had not explained injuries found on the person of appellant Ashok Ram. Accordingly, it is submitted that non-explanation of the injuries of appellant Ashok Ram is fatal to the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants Umesh Ram submits that P.W.5, who is an injured witnesses, had stated at paragraph no.21 of his deposition that at the time of occurrence, appellants Umesh Ram and Kailash Ram were not present at the place of occurrence. P.W.8 ( informant) did not take the name of Umesh Ram in the F.I.R. nor he alleged anything against Umesh Ram in his examination-in-chief. P.W.8 ( informant) did not take the name of Umesh Ram in the F.I.R. nor he alleged anything against Umesh Ram in his examination-in-chief. He further submits that P.W.2 at paragraph 18 had stated that Kailash Ram and Umesh Ram had not assaulted any body. P.W.3 had not alleged any overt act against appellant Umesh Ram. P.W.4 in his entire deposition has not alleged anything against Umesh Ram. Thus, it is submitted that conviction of Umesh Ram on the basis of aforesaid evidence is wholly unwarranted, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Sri. A.K. Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. and Sri A.N. Deo, learned counsel for the informant submits that in the instant case barring some minor variations and discrepancies, evidence, of all the prosecution witnesses, who are eye witnesses of the occurrence, are consistent. It is further submitted that P.W.5 and P.W.8 are injured witnesses, thus, they are very reliable witnesses and their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. It is submitted that appellant Ashok Ram has not received injuries at the time of present occurrence. Thus, prosecution is not bound to explain the injuries sustained by him. In this regard learned counsel submits that from perusal of Ext-B- F.I.R. of Koderma P.S. case no.141/1990, it is clear that Ashok Ram received injuries in an occurrence, which took place at 7 p.m., whereas present occurrence took place at 8 p.m. Thus, it is clear that appellant Ashok Ram received injuries in another incident, therefore, prosecution is not bound to explain aforesaid injuries. It is submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence no interference required by this Court. 8. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. P.W.9 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Shravan Kumar and found altogether four injuries in his person. According to him, all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. He further opined that death of the deceased was due to head injury. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.9 finds full support from the inquest report. Thus, I am of the view that deceased Shravan Kumar died a homicidal death, 9. According to him, all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. He further opined that death of the deceased was due to head injury. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.9 finds full support from the inquest report. Thus, I am of the view that deceased Shravan Kumar died a homicidal death, 9. It further appears that P.W.1, who is Medical Officer in Koderma Hospital had examined P.W.5, P.W.8 and the deceased in Koderma Hospital on the date of occurrence and had found injuries on their body and accordingly prepared injury report Ext.1 series. Thus, it is clear that on the date and time of occurrence, P.W.5 and P.W.8 had also received injuries by hard and blunt substance. Now, the question arose for determination, as to whether, appellants and other co-convicts had any hand in the commission of present crime ? 10. At the first instance, I am dealing with the appeal filed by Ashok Ram, Binu Ram and Tilak Ram, i.e. Cr. Appeal No.606 of 2004. It is relevant to mention that aforesaid appellants are sons of Kishun Ram. It is an admitted position that father of appellants is the landlord of the shop, in which deceased was running grocery shop. It is also an admitted position that there was dispute between the parties with respect to said shop. It is also an admitted position that relation of parties were strained in connection with eviction of deceased from the shop. In the F.I.R., it is mentioned that because of the dispute between the parties in connection with a shop, the present occurrence took place. Under the said circumstance, I find that motive for the occurrence is more or less admitted in this case. 11. As noticed above, P.W.5 and P.W.8 are injured witnesses. They stated that at 8 p.m. appellants Ashok Ram, Binu Ram, Tilak Ram, Kailash Ram and Umesh Ram came at the shop armed with lathi and danda and abused them and asked to vacate the shop, otherwise they will be destroyed. They further deposed that appellants dragged the deceased out of the shop and assaulted him. Appellant Binu Ram brought a sword from his house and tried to assault deceased with the same. But P.W.8 intervened and prevented Binu Ram from doing so, due to that P.W.8 received injuries. They further deposed that appellants dragged the deceased out of the shop and assaulted him. Appellant Binu Ram brought a sword from his house and tried to assault deceased with the same. But P.W.8 intervened and prevented Binu Ram from doing so, due to that P.W.8 received injuries. Thereafter, co-convicts Baiju Pandey brought an iron rod and handed it over to Ashok Ram, who assaulted deceased with the said iron rod. Due to that deceased received injury on his head and fell on the ground and became unconscious. The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.8 is consistent with the statement made in the written report, so far it relates to allegations made against the appellants Ashok Ram, Binu Ram and Tilak Ram. There are some minor variations with regard to bringing of sword by Binu Ram from his house and also with regard to handing over of iron rod to Ashok Ram by co-convicts Baiju Pandey. Apart from that there is no exaggeration and/or development in the deposition. Thus, I find that the aforesaid variation and/or development has no bearing on the case of prosecution. 12. The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.8 finds full support from the ocular testimony of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.11 and P.W.12, who arrived at the scene of occurrence after hearing hulla and witnessed the occurrence. They also stated that deceased Shravan Kumar was assaulted by the appellants. It appears that P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.12 were present near the place of occurrence, as they have their shops in the market itself. Thus, they appear to be natural witnesses. P.W.11 Karuna Devi is wife of deceased and she came at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and saw that her husband was lying on the ground and appellants were fleeing from there, armed with iron rod and lathi. Thus, I find that P.W.11 also clearly stated that the appellants had committed the present crime. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2, P.W.3., P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.12 are related witnesses and they are inimical to appellants. Under the said circumstances, only on their evidence conviction of appellants not warranted. In my view, the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 14. It is well settled that merely because witnesses are closely related to the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded. Under the said circumstances, only on their evidence conviction of appellants not warranted. In my view, the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 14. It is well settled that merely because witnesses are closely related to the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded. Therefore, relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affect the credibility of a witness. More so, relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegation against innocent person. However, court is required to approach and analyse the evidence of related witnesses with extra care and caution. 15. From perusal of cross-examination of aforesaid witnesses, I find that defence has not elicited any material on which their evidence can be discarded. It is worth mentioning that P.W.5 and P.W.8 are injured witnesses. Thus, their presence at the scene of incident cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the fact that they have examined by the Doctor without any loss of time in Koderma Govt. Hospital. From perusal of lengthy cross-examination of P.W.5 and P.W.8, I find that defence has elicited nothing except some minor variations which does not otherwise affect the core of prosecution case. Even if said minor variations and discrepancies remain present, the same would not call for rejecting their evidence. Under the said circumstance, on close scrutiny of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, I find that their evidence is acceptable, so far it relates to appellants Ashok Ram, Binu Ram and Tilak . 16. Second contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that Ashok Ram has also received grievous injuries during incident and said injuries had not been explained by the prosecution, therefore, entire prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved. Aforesaid submission is also worth to be rejected. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mono Dutt and another .Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2012)4 SCC-79 at paragraph 39 that : "Before the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses, may be held to affect the prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions : (i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were also of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question ; 17. In the instant case, though P.W.1 had found grievous injuries on the left hand of appellant Ashok Ram, but from perusal of Ext.B, it is clear that appellant Ashok Ram had received aforesaid injuries in an incident which took place at 7 p.m. It is worth mentioning that present occurrence took place at 8 p.m. Thus, it is clear that appellant has not received injury at the time of occurrence in which deceased (Shravan Kumar), P.W.5 and P.W.8 had received injuries. In this connection, it is also worth mentioning that appellant Ashok Ram in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has not claimed that he too received injuries in course of the present occurrence. No defence witness examined to prove that Ashok Ram had received injuries during the occurrence in question. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has no obligation to explain injuries on the person of appellant Ashok Ram. Hence, non-explanation of injury on the person of appellant (Ashok Ram) has no bearing on the case of prosecution. 18. In view of discussions made above, I find that ocular testimony find full support from the medical evidence and objective finding of Investigating Officer, thus, I find that prosecution has proved that appellants Ashok Ram, Binu Ram and Tilak Ram had committed offence under sections 302/149/323 of the I.P.C. Thus, the court below has rightly convicted and sentenced them for the aforesaid offences. 19. Now, I am proceeding to consider the appeal filed by appellant Umesh Ram. It is worth mentioning that appellant Umesh Ram has not been named in the F.I.R. P.W.2 in his deposition has stated that Kailash Ram and Umesh Ram had not assaulted any one. P.W.3 has not taken name of Umesh Ram in his examination-in-chief nor he alleged any overt-act against him. P.W.4 has also not named the appellant Umesh Ram. P.W.5, who is one of the injured witness has categorically stated at paragraph 21 that at the time of occurrence Umesh Ram was not present at the scene of occurrence P.W.6 had also not named appellant Umesh Ram. P.W.8, who is informant in this case has not named Umesh Ram in his examination-in-chief. It is also worth mentioning that Umesh Ram had no concern with the shop in question. Thus, he had no motive for committing present crime. P.W.8, who is informant in this case has not named Umesh Ram in his examination-in-chief. It is also worth mentioning that Umesh Ram had no concern with the shop in question. Thus, he had no motive for committing present crime. I further find that evidence laid by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict Umesh Ram for the offence under section 302/323 of the I.P.C. Thus, in my view, conviction of appellant Umesh Ram by the learned court below is against the evidence available on record and therefore, same cannot be sustained. 20. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the Cr. Appeal No.606 of 2004 and, therefore the same is dismissed. 21. It appears that appellants namely, Binu Ram and Tilak Ram of Cr. Appeal No. 606 of 2004 are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence awarded against them. The court below is also directed to take all coercive steps for their arrest. 22. The appeal filed by appellant Umesh Ram i.e. Cr. Appeal No.763 of 2004 is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against appellant Umesh Ram is hereby set aside. Appellant Umesh Ram is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. It appears that appellant Umesh Ram is on bail, thus, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.