Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.) Present appeal has been filed by accused appellantAbid under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgement and order dated 30.4.1993 passed by IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 106 of 1991 (State Vs. Abid) under Section 302 I.P.C., whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit has convicted accused appellant Abid and sentenced him thereunder to imprisonment for life. Sri Jitendra Kumar, Advocate, amicus Curiae appointed by Court vide order dated 12.8.2014 appeared for accused appellant and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. appeared for State respondent. We have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the records. In brief, according to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 prosecution case is that complainant Chhotey and accused Abid as well as Raisuddin son of Bholu Khan and Naseer Ahmad son of Amir Mohd. are residents of Village Sherpur Kalan P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit and were doing harvesting of paddy crops of Sardar Jaswant Singh in village Gulariya Police Station Madhotanda, District Pilibhit. In night all of them used to stay in Varamda of Sardar Jaswant Singh. In the night of occurrence i.e. intervening night of 27.10.1990 and 28.10.1990 complainant Chhotey and all others doing harvesting work were lying in the Varamda after having taken meal. Wife of complainant Chhotey Smt. Afsari was lying near middle door of the Varamda. Her head was out of the door. Accused Abid was lying on the side of feet of Smt. Afsari. His head was towards west. At about 1.00 a.m. some altercation took place between Smt. Afsari, wife of complainant and accused Abid regarding harvesting of crop, whereupon accused Abid abused Smt. Afsari. In reply Smt. Afsari also abused him. Complainant as well as Raisuddin, Nasir and others tried to pacify them. At that time electric bulb was lighting. Thereafter, accused Abid went out of the Varamda. After some time he came with Kulhari (axe) and suddenly gave a blow of Kulhari (axe) on the head of Smt. Afsari and ran away leaving Kulhari on spot. Complainant and other persons present there raised alarm and tried to catch accused Abid, but they could not catch him. After chasing him when complainant returned back, he saw that his wife Afsari is dead. After occurrence complainant Chhotey get written F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 by Zabbar Ali P.W.-4 and put his thumb impression on the same. Complainant and other persons present there raised alarm and tried to catch accused Abid, but they could not catch him. After chasing him when complainant returned back, he saw that his wife Afsari is dead. After occurrence complainant Chhotey get written F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 by Zabbar Ali P.W.-4 and put his thumb impression on the same. Thereafter complainant Chhotey presented report Ext.Ka-1 in police station Madhotanda on 28.10.1990 at 7.30 A.M., whereupon Crime No.169 of 1990 under section 304 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Madhotanda against accused appellant Abid and investigation was started by police. Inquest report of deceased Smt. Afsari was prepared by police and after having completed necessary formalities dead body of Afsari was sent for post mortem in sealed cover. Later on investigation was completed by police in accordance with law. After having completed investigation, police submitted charge sheet against accused appellant Abid for offence punishable under Section 304/504 I.P.C.. Whereupon the Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Session for trial. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 106 of 1991 (State Vs. Abid) under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Madhotanda, District Pilibhit was registered in the session court of District Pilibhit. Later on, said session trial was transferred to the court of IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit who framed charge against accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C.. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later on, amended charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against accused Abid by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. Accused appellant again plead not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey, P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad, P.W.-3 Makbool, P.W.-4 Zabbar, P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta, P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh and P.W.-7 Constable Intisarul Hasan Zaidi and closed his evidence. After prosecution evidence statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Accused appellant Abid stated that he has been falsely implicated. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit heard the arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 30.4.1993 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellant as mentioned above. Learned amicus curiae Sri Jitendra Kumar, Advocate contended that accused appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit heard the arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 30.4.1993 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellant as mentioned above. Learned amicus curiae Sri Jitendra Kumar, Advocate contended that accused appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned amicus curiae contended that the F.I.R. is anti time and whole story of prosecution is false and concocted. Learned amicus curiae contended that from evidence on record, it transpires that the wife of complainant has been murdered in darkness of night by unknown person and accused has been falsely implicated due to animosity. Learned amicus curiae contended that no source of light has been proved by prosecution at the time of occurrence. Learned amicus curiae contended that the presence of all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution is highly doubtful and there are contradictions in their statements, therefore, these witnesses are not reliable witnesses and it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of these witnesses to convict accused appellant. Learned amicus curiae prayed that appeal should be allowed and accused appellant should be acquitted. Learned A.G.A. contended that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.. He further contended that there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of eyes witnesses P.W.-1 Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad. Presence of these eyes witnesses on the place of occurrence is natural and there is no material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve them. Learned A.G.A. contended that the trial court has rightly convicted accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.. Learned A.G.A. contended that the sentence awarded by the trial court is not excessive. Learned A.G.A. contended that appeal has no merit. Learned A.G.A. prayed that appeal should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of 7 witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad are the witnesses of fact and occurrence. They have supported the story narrated in Ext.Ka-1 in their statements on oath. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has proved F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 also in his statement. P.W.-3 Makbool has stated in his statement that Investigating Officer has taken into possession the blood stained axe and blood stained cloths from the place of occurrence in presence of him. They have supported the story narrated in Ext.Ka-1 in their statements on oath. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has proved F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 also in his statement. P.W.-3 Makbool has stated in his statement that Investigating Officer has taken into possession the blood stained axe and blood stained cloths from the place of occurrence in presence of him. He has proved before trial court blood stained axe material Ext-1 and blood stained clothes material Exts-2 to 4. P.W.-3 Makbool has stated in his statement on oath that Investigating Officer has taken blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence. He has proved Memo of above blood stained articles and plain earth Ext.Ka-2. P.W.-3 Makbool has stated that inquest report of deceased Afsari was prepared in his presence. He has proved the inquest report Ext.Ka-3 also in his statement. P.W.-4 Zabbar is the scribe of First Information Report Ext.Ka-1. He has stated that on 28.10.1990 at about 6.00 A.M. he met with complainant Chhotey and Makbool at Puranpur chauraha. Thereafter, he wrote report Ext.Ka-1 on the dictation of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey, who put his thumb impression on it. P.W.-4 Zabbar has stated in his statement that Investigating Officer has taken blood stained earth and plain earth as well as blood stained axe and blood stained clothes from the place of occurrence in his presence and has prepared Memo. He has proved in his statement Memo of above blood stained articles and plain earth Ext.Ka-2. He has further proved inquest report Ext.Ka-3 also. P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta has stated in his statement that on 29.10.1990 he was posted as Senior Pathologist in District Hospital, Pilibhit. On that day at 2.00 P.M. he conducted post mortem of Afsari, wife of Chhotey resident of Sherpur Kalan P.S. Puranpur. The dead body was brought by Constable Intasarul Hasan Zaidi and Home Guard Janki Prasad in sealed cover. The dead body was identified by the same Constable and Home Guard. P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta has proved post mortem report of deceased Smt. Afsari Ext.Ka-4 and has stated that the ante mortem injury found on her dead body was sufficient to cause her death. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has stated in his statement that on 28.10.1990 he was posted as Sub-inspector in P.S. Madhotanda. P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta has proved post mortem report of deceased Smt. Afsari Ext.Ka-4 and has stated that the ante mortem injury found on her dead body was sufficient to cause her death. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has stated in his statement that on 28.10.1990 he was posted as Sub-inspector in P.S. Madhotanda. He has stated that complainant Chhotey lodged report in his police station in his presence and after registration of case he took investigation into his hands. He has proved G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-5. He has stated that after recording statement of Chhotey at police station under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he went to place of occurrence. He has stated that he had taken blood stained axe, blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence. He has stated that blood stained clothes, Bed-sheet, Pillow and Shal of deceased were also taken into possession and kept in sealed cover. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh has stated in his statement that he had prepared Memo of above blood stained articles, which is Ext.Ka-2. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh has proved inquest report Ext.Ka-3. He has proved specimen seal Ext.Ka-6, photo nash Ext.Ka-7, challan nash Ext.Ka-8, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-9 and report to C.M.O. Ext.Ka-10 also. He has stated that the dead body of deceased Smt. Afsari was handed over to Constable Intasarul Hasan Zaidi, P.V.D. Ram Autar and Janki Prasad for post mortem. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh has stated that after having completed investigation, he presented charge sheet Ext.Ka-11 against accused. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh has proved chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-12 also by identifying writing and signature of scribe Head Moharrir Rachhpal Nath. P.W.-7 Constable Intasarul Hasan Zaidi has stated in his statement that on 28.10.1990 he was posted at Police Station Madhotanda. On that day he has made signature on inquest report of deceased Afsari wife of Chhotey Ext.Ka-3. He has stated that the dead body was sealed in presence of him and was handed over to him as well as to P.V.D. Ram Autar and P.V.D. Janki Prasad for post mortem. P.W.-7 Constable Intasarul Hasan Zaidi has stated that after post mortem doctor has handed over to him two envelopes. He brought said two envelopes to police station and handed over to Station Officer. In his statement he has proved Tavees, anguthi, keel, bangles and clothes of deceased as material Exts. P.W.-7 Constable Intasarul Hasan Zaidi has stated that after post mortem doctor has handed over to him two envelopes. He brought said two envelopes to police station and handed over to Station Officer. In his statement he has proved Tavees, anguthi, keel, bangles and clothes of deceased as material Exts. 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7. We have examined the evidence on record in the light of contentions of parties. According to chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-12 and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-5, report Ext.Ka-1 was lodged at police station Madhotanda by complainant Chhotey on 28.10.1990 at 7.30 A.M. and Crime No. 169/1990 under Section 304 I.P.C. was registered at the same time in P.S. Madhotanda against accused appellant Abid. Complainant Chhotey has stated on oath that after occurrence he set out to go to his village. In the way in Puranpur Zabbar, Makbool and Bholoo Khan met him. He told them all facts. Then on his dictation Zabbar wrote report in Puranpur. Thereafter he put his thumb impression on it. He has stated in cross examination that he went to Madhotanda by first bus at 7.00 A.M. Madhotanda is 7-8 Kms. from Puranpur. 10-15 minutes were consumed in reaching Madhotanda. P.W.-3 Makbool has stated that they set out to go Madhotanda at 7.00 A.M. from Puranpur, they reached Madhotanda at 7.30 A.M.. P.W.-4 Zabbar has stated that they set out to go from Puranpur to Madhotanda at 7.30 to 8.00 A.M. and reach Madhotanda at 9.00 or 9.30 A.M.. Distance between Puranpur and Madhotanda has been stated by P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey 7-8 Kms. Therefore, time of arrival at Madhotanda stated by P.W.-4 Zabbar is apparently incorrect. Considering the statements of all the three witnesses arrival of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey at P.S. Madhotanda at 7.30 A.M. is reliable and it is supported by chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-12 and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-5. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has stated that he went from Puranpur to Madhotanda with bus and P.W.-4 Zabbar has stated that they went to Madhotanda from Puranpur by Jeep. But this contradiction is immaterial and it may be due erosion of memory as statements of said witnesses have been recorded after more than one year of occurrence. Perusal of inquest report Ext.Ka-3 shows that it has been prepared on 28.10.1990 at 12.00 Noon. But this contradiction is immaterial and it may be due erosion of memory as statements of said witnesses have been recorded after more than one year of occurrence. Perusal of inquest report Ext.Ka-3 shows that it has been prepared on 28.10.1990 at 12.00 Noon. In inquest report Ext.Ka-3, Photo nash Ext.Ka-7 and Challan nash Ext.Ka-8 Crime No.169 of 1990 under Section 304/504 I.P.C. has been written, while Crime No. 169 of 1990 has been registered under Section 304 I.P.C. only. Perusal of F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 shows that offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is also made out. I.O. has subsequently added Section 504 I.P.C. and has submitted charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 304/504 I.P.C. Therefore, no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution for writing Secions 304/504 I.P.C. on inquest report, photo nash, challan nash and other papers. In view of discussion made above, it is apparent that F.I.R. has been lodged at 7.30 A.M. early in the morning about 6.30 hour after occurrence and sufficient reason has been shown for not lodging F.I.R. immediately. There is nothing on record to show F.I.R. anti time and concocted. In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 specific mention has been made that complainant Chhotey and accused Abid as well as witnesses Raisuddin and Naseer Ahmad had gone to village Gulariya for doing harvesting of paddy crops of Sardar Jashwant Singh and in night they used to stay in Varamda of Sardar Jashwant Singh. In the night of occurrence also they were sleeping in the Varamda of Jashwant Singh alongwith Smt. Afsari wife of complainant Chhotey. In statement on oath P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad have supported this version of F.I.R.. Statement of P.W.-6 S.I. S.P.Singh as well as site plan Ext.Ka-5 also shows that place of occurrence is within village Gulariya and the occurrence has taken place in Varamda of Sardar Jashwant Singh. Complainant Chhotey and accused Abid as well as witnesses Naseer Ahmad and Ameer Mohd are undisputedly resident of same village Sheikhpur. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has stated in cross examination made by defence that place of occurrence village Gulariya is about 18 to 20 Kms. Away from his village. Complainant Chhotey and accused Abid as well as witnesses Naseer Ahmad and Ameer Mohd are undisputedly resident of same village Sheikhpur. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has stated in cross examination made by defence that place of occurrence village Gulariya is about 18 to 20 Kms. Away from his village. In view of above facts, it appears most reliable that complainant Chhotey, his wife Smt. Afsari and accused Abid as well as witnesses Naseer Ahmad and Raisuddin had gone to village Gulariya for the purpose of doing labour work of harvesting and were staying in the Varamda of Sardar Jashwant Singh. Therefore, at the time of occurrence the presence of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad as well as accused Abid at the place of occurrence is highly reliable. Perusal of site plan Ext.Ka-5 shows that where dead body of Smt. Afsari wife of complainant Chhotey was found by I.O. near the same place bed of accused Abid was also found. I.O. has shown bed of accused Abid with letter 'A' in site plan. Accused appellant Abid has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been implicated due to animosity but he could not established any enmity with complainant Chhotey as well as witnesses P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad, P.W.-3 Makbool and P.W.-4 Zabbar either by cross examination of witnesses or through documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground to believe that witnesses are inimical to accused appellant and accused appellant has been falsely implicated due to animosity. Perusal of statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey, P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad, P.W.-3 Makbool and P.W.-4 Zabbar shows that after occurrence P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey went to his village from the place of occurrence and in Puranpur he met with P.W.-3 Makbool and P.W.-4 Zabbar where P.W.-4 Zabbar wrote F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 on his dictation and thereafter they went to police station Madhotanda and lodged F.I.R.. As mentioned above, place of occurrence is about 18 to 20 Kms. Away from the village of complainant. After murder of his wife it appears natural for complainant Chhotey to go to his men, to express his sorrow and grief. As mentioned above, place of occurrence is about 18 to 20 Kms. Away from the village of complainant. After murder of his wife it appears natural for complainant Chhotey to go to his men, to express his sorrow and grief. Therefore, we are of the view that the conduct of the complainant Chhotey after murder of his wife may not be said to be unusual and the prosecution story may not be seen with doubt merely on the ground that complainant Chhotey went to his village after occurrence before lodging F.I.R.. As mentioned above, no enmity has been established by defence between complainant Chhotey and accused appellant Abid. Therefore, there is no reason for false implication. It appears quite unnatural that complainant Chhotey shall conceal actual assailant of his wife and falsely implicate innocent person. We have gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses. We are unable to found any material contradiction in statements of witnesses namely P.W.-1 complainant, P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad, P.W.-3 Makbool and P.W.-4 Zabbar. Minor contradictions are but natural in statements of truthful witnesses. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 2012 (IV) SCC 124 , 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." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony A.I.R. 1985 SC 48, Hon'ble Apex Court held that," every honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "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." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court further 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." In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that testimonies of witnesses may not be discarded on the ground of minor contradiction or discrepancy. According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 accused appellant Abid went outside from the Varamda and after sometime came with Kulhari (axe) and suddenly gave a blow on the head of Smt. Afsari wife of complainant Chhotey. Thereafter, leaving Kulhari on spot he ran away. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad both are the witnesses of occurrence and both of them have narrated same story as mentioned in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1. P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta has conducted post mortem of Smt. Afsari wife of complainant Chhotey on 29.10.1990 at 2.00 P.M.. It is apparent from the statement of P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta as well as post mortem report Ext.Ka-4 that time of death at the time of post mortem was found one and half day. Therefore, statement of doctor and post mortem report corroborates time of death of Smt. Afsari alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in statements of witnesses P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad. It is apparent from post mortem report Ext.Ka-4 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta that following ante mortem injury was found on the body of deceased Smt. Afsari:- 1- Incised wound over right side of head 10 cm. X 2.3 cm. X brain exposed (depressed) 1.5 cm. above the right ear and 4.5 cm. lateral to the right angle of right eye infront placed anterior postnor slightly irregular margins slightly irregular. Merino are cut brain cranial mixed with blood. Fracture of right parietal temporal. Front bone and middle cranial forca on right side. Fracture of parietal bone extending posterity. Fracture of occipital bone ." P.W.-5 Dr. above the right ear and 4.5 cm. lateral to the right angle of right eye infront placed anterior postnor slightly irregular margins slightly irregular. Merino are cut brain cranial mixed with blood. Fracture of right parietal temporal. Front bone and middle cranial forca on right side. Fracture of parietal bone extending posterity. Fracture of occipital bone ." P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta has stated before the trial court on oath that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of Smt. Afsari may be caused by axe material Ext.-1 produced before him in court room. Therefore, version of F.I.R. as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad are fully corroborated by post moretem report Ext.Ka-4 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta. Statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey as well as P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad are corroborated by statement of I.O. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh as well as site plan Ex.Ka-5 also. In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 specific mention has been made by complainant Chhotey that electric bulb was hanging on outer side which was lighting. P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has stated in his statement on oath that the bulb was lighting in Varamda. P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad, who is witness of occurrence has also stated that on spot bulb was lighting. I.O. P.W.-6 S.I. S.P. Singh has also found bulb at the time of inspection and has shown it in site plan Ext.Ka-5. Thus, evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the bulb was lighting at the time of occurrence. Besides this, accused appellant Abid as well as complainant Chhotey and witness Naseer Ahmad are resident of same village and are known persons to each other and it is apparent from the version of F.I.R. as well as statements of witnesses that accused appellant Abid was also doing harvesting work along with complainant Chhotey and witnesses as well as deceased and all of them were staying in the Varamda of Sardar Jashwant Singh. In such circumstances, even in darkness accused may easily be identified by complainant and witnesses by his movement, voice etc.. Admittedly P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey is the husband of deceased Smt. Afsari and P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has admitted in cross examination that P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad is his relative (Samdhi). In such circumstances, even in darkness accused may easily be identified by complainant and witnesses by his movement, voice etc.. Admittedly P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey is the husband of deceased Smt. Afsari and P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey has admitted in cross examination that P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad is his relative (Samdhi). Thus, it is apparent that P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad are relatives but merely on the ground of relationship testimonies of these witnesses may not be discarded as Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held in catena of decisions that statements of witnesses may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. For reference following pronoucements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited:- 1- Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 2011 SC 280. 2- Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 91. 3- Kapil Deo Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2008 SCC 533 . After having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as whole statements of P.W.-1 complainant Chhotey and P.W.-2 Naseer Ahmad, we are of the view that these witnesses are trustworthy witnesses and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve their testimonies regarding version of occurrence. In the case of Narpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 SC, Hon'ble Apex Court held that, " If the witnesses examined are believed, the question of inference for non-examination does not arise." In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution for non-examination of witnesses. P.W.-5 Dr. S.R. Gupta has stated in his statement on oath that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased Smt. Afsari was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. After having gone through the 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 appellant Abid for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.. Perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court shows that learned trial court has gone through whole evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case and has discussed relevant points at length. The conclusion drawn by trial court appears to be based on judicious analysis of evidence. Perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court shows that learned trial court has gone through whole evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case and has discussed relevant points at length. The conclusion drawn by trial court appears to be based on judicious analysis of evidence. In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly placed reliance upon evidence adduced by prosecution and has rightly convicted the accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The sentence awarded by trial court is not excessive and no appeal has been filed by State for enhancement of sentence. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for justifying interference in impugned judgement and order. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Accused appellant Abid is on bail. He shall surrender before trial court within 30 days from the date of this judgement for serving sentence awarded to him, failing which trial court shall ensure his arrest and shall send him jail for serving sentence. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to trial court for securing compliance. Send back records of trial court immediately. ——————