(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.1.1986 passed by the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 124 of 1985 (crime no. 61 of 1984) whereby the appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution story in the FIR is that accused Sahabuddin and Nizamuddin were real brothers. Their father had died about 20 years back from the date of the incident and since then Nizamuddin (since deceased), who was physically challenged and unmarried person was living with his mother Smt. Jainulnisa, the informant. Accused Sahabuddin was living separately with his family. It is also alleged that few days prior to the incident Nizamuddin had expressed his intention to donate some portion of his house and his share of agricultural land to the masque. Therefore, Sahabuddin harboured ill will against his brother. The accused used to abuse Smt. Jainulnisa and Nizamuddin very often. The incident in question occurred on 21.8.1984 at about 7.30 P.M. at village Chhapiya, P.S. Shyamdewrua. At that time Smt. Jainulnisa was taking her meal and Nizamuddin after taking his food had gone out of the house. The accused Sahabuddin came over to the house of the complainant and caught hold of Nizamuddin, whom he dragged to cattle shed of Ismile. Sahabuddin threw Nizamuddin on the ground and causing him injury by sharp edged weapon 'Kreecha' which is similar to a knife. Smt. Jainulnisa and Nizamuddin raised alarms whereupon witnesses Mohd. Ismile, his son Mikail, Hari, Badri and other persons reached on the spot flashing their torches . Nizamuddin then fled away through lane towards west. Nizamuddin died in the incident. The written report relating to the occurrence was scribed by Niyazuddin Khan on the dictation of the complainant Smt. Jainulnisa and a named FIR was lodged at P.S. Shyamdewrua on 21.8.84 at 11.30 P.M. against accused Sahabuddin. On the basis of the First Information Report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against him and investigation was taken up by the S.O. Sri Rajendra Prasad Kanojia. On the basis of the First Information Report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against him and investigation was taken up by the S.O. Sri Rajendra Prasad Kanojia. The investigation in the matter was immediately started by the I.O., who on 21.8.1984 visited the spot in the same night but his investigation did not progress on account of darkness. The inquest report of the deceased Nizamuddin was prepared on the spot, the next morning the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination through constables Haridas and Chandradeo in District Hospital, Gorakhpur where Dr. M.P. Singh (PW-5) has performed the post mortem examination of deceased Nizamuddin on 22.8.1984 at 5.00 P.M. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Nizamuddin. 1.Lacerated wound 1"x1/2" x muscle deep in between the right thumb and first finger. 2.Lacerated wound 1/4"x1/4" x skin deep on the right palm. 3.Incised wound 2"x2-1/2" x cavity deep on the front of the right side of neck. 4.Incised wound 2-1/2" x1-1/4" x muscle deep on the left side of the neck. 5.Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the back of the left side of the neck. 6.Incised wound 1/2"x1/2" x cavity deep on the front of chest on right side. The post mortem report discloses that 5 oz. rice and dal were present in the stomach. The death of the deceased according to the doctor was caused by shock and haemorrhage on account of the above mentioned injuries. The duration of death according to the doctor was about one day at the time of the post mortem examination. The I.O. recovered blood stained and ordinary soil from the place of occurrence and also took into his possession the murder weapon by which the murder was said to have been committed. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and also recorded statements of Smt. Jainulnisa, the informant, witnesses Mohd. Ismile and Mikaiel. Search for accused Sahabuddin was made but he was not immediately found. Ultimately, his statement came to be recorded by the I.O. in the district Jail on 3.9.84. On 15.9.84 on conclusion of the investigation charge sheet against accused Sahabuddin was submitted, who on committal of the case to the Court of Session was charged under Section 302 IPC. Search for accused Sahabuddin was made but he was not immediately found. Ultimately, his statement came to be recorded by the I.O. in the district Jail on 3.9.84. On 15.9.84 on conclusion of the investigation charge sheet against accused Sahabuddin was submitted, who on committal of the case to the Court of Session was charged under Section 302 IPC. He has pleaded not guilty to the said charge and has claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all seven witnesses, namely, PW-1 Smt. Jainulnisa is the informant. PW-2, Ismail in whose cattle shed the incident had taken place, PW-3 Mikaiel is an eyewitness of the murder, PW-4 Sri Rajendra Prasad was the I.O. PW-5 Dr. M.P. Singh was the Medical Officer posted in Government District Hospital, Gorakhpur at the relevant time. PW-6 Shobh Nath Yadav is a formal witness and PW-7 is constable Niyamujddin, the scribe of the written report. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations made against him and claiming to have been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses; that the incident is said to have taken place on 21.8.1984 at about 7.30 P.M. whereas the FIR has been lodged by PW-1 Jainulnisa on the same day at 11.30 P.M. He was drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of Smt. Jainulnisa (PW-1) who has stated that she did not see the incident and when she reached the place of occurrence her son was lying dead there. She has denied of ever having lodged the FIR and has stated that the police took her thumb impression on a plain paper. Ismail (PW-2) is the cousin of the appellant. He has stated that 8 days prior to the alleged incident deceased had told that he will donate his property to Masjid. P.W.3 stated that deceased had told him the aforesaid fact that the deceased wanted to donate the property to Masjid was stated by deceased before Rafiq, who is care taker of Masjid. He also stated when the murder took place inside the house at about 7.30 P.M., there was no source of light. They had stood outside the eastern entry of Ghari and witnessed the accused-appellant escaping from western side of Ghari. He also stated when the murder took place inside the house at about 7.30 P.M., there was no source of light. They had stood outside the eastern entry of Ghari and witnessed the accused-appellant escaping from western side of Ghari. Moreover accused never made his escape good from opposite western side of house; that after the accused escaped and till morning no person of the village came on spot and he remained on the spot whole night till morning. However, Niyazudddin (PW-7) in his statement has stated that he arrived on the spot after about 25 minutes of the incident, which shows that P.W-7 never visited the spot, hence the FIR becomes doubtful. P.W. 2 has stated that in the entire night of 21/22 August, 1984 he never met P.W.7 at the place of occurrence where he remained along with P.W.1 Smt. Zainulnisa for the whole night since the time of alleged murder till morning, then the prosecution story becomes doubtful that how can P.W.1 got the FIR written by P.W.7 and present herself to police station to get it lodged at 11.30 P.M. when she never went away from the place of incident the entire night. He has also stated that he never heard the alarm raised by deceased Nizamuddin at the time of incident then how he came to know about the incident and reached the spot. Moreover, P.W.1 has stated that she reached the place of incident when the incident has already occurred and the accused has already escaped. P.W.3 Mikaiel in his evidence has stated that when he had reached the spot and was about 5 yards away from the Ghari accused fled away from western exit and he was on eastern entry. It was, therefore, highly impossible for him to see the incident in dark and from outside the Ghari. He has also stated that he remained outside the Ghari when he felt that deceased has already died. It means that he never went inside and saw the incident actually happen because inside it was dark. at 7.30 P.M. He has further stated that he after the incident went away and informed the village Chowkidar about the incident and again returned back to the place of occurrence and remained there whole night till morning along with P.W.2 and P.W.1. at 7.30 P.M. He has further stated that he after the incident went away and informed the village Chowkidar about the incident and again returned back to the place of occurrence and remained there whole night till morning along with P.W.2 and P.W.1. This also shows that P.W.1 never left the place of incident whole night then how she can lodge FIR at 11.30 P.M. on 21.8.1984. He has also stated that his statement was recorded by the I.O. at about 12.00 in the night whereas the I.O. P.W.4 has stated that he came on the spot in the night but he never did anything because of darkness. P.W. 4, Rajendra Prasad, the I.O. has stated that he has prepared the site plan on pointing out of P.W. 1 but in the site plan the location of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 has not been mentioned which shows that P.W.1 never witnessed the incident. He has also stated that P.W.3 never showed the place from where he saw the incident and in site plan he has not indicated the location of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 from where they saw the incident. This fact proves that they were not an eye-witness and they were never present at the place and time of incident. The I.O. has also stated in his evidence that he never collected any evidence that at the time of incident whether any one else except the accused and deceased was present inside the 'Ghari' or not. This creates doubt about the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the time and place of occurrence. The prosecution has failed to explain injury nos. (i) and (II) which are lacerated wounds and it is specific case that the accused has caused injury by knife. P.W.5 has also stated that the death of deceased has occurred after 4 to 6 hours of taking meal whereas it is specific case of the prosecution that the deceased had taken meal at 7.30 P.M. and went out of his house and committed the murder. This fact does not corroborate the medical evidence, therefore, the time of incident becomes doubtful. This fact does not corroborate the medical evidence, therefore, the time of incident becomes doubtful. P.W.6 has stated that it is wrong to say that P.W.1 did not come to the police station to lodge an FIR at 11.30 P.M. on 21.8.1984 which contradicts the statement of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who have stated that P.W.1 never left the place of incident since after the alleged murder till morning of 22.8.1984 and remained along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 the whole night at the spot. This confirms the version of P.W.1 that she never lodged the FIR and denied its contents. P.W.7 has stated that he scribed the FIR upon dictation of P.W.1 and he reached the place of incident about 25 minutes after the incident but P.W.1 has denied this fact in her statement. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have completely denied the presence of P.W.7 at the place of incident, hence the version and sanctity of FIR collapses. He has also stated that I.O. P.W.4 never recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and his father is in police department. This shows that the police took the thumb impression of P.W.1 on blank paper and got scribed FIR by P.W.7 in consultation of P.Ws. 2 and 3. In view of the above it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from perusal of the aforesaid facts it is clear that Ismail (PW-2) and Makaiel (PW-3) had never witnessed the incident because according to the statement of P.W.1 she reached the place of incident when his son was lying there dead and accused has fled away and then she raised an alarm. Deceased never raised alarm, hence it was never possible for P.W.2 and P.W.3 to reach the spot at the time incident; that P.W.2 and P.W.3 have in fact committed the murder of deceased due to the reason that they have seen the deceased in the company of P.W.2, daughter Jainulnisa in Ghari which is the house of P.W.2 and they have got lodged a false FIR with the help of police as to explain the murder of Nizamuddin inside their house. He lastly submits that the appellant is aged about 70 years and is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He lastly submits that the appellant is aged about 70 years and is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another versus State of Maharasthra (2013) 6 SCC-417. Per contra, learned AGA submits that P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given a clear and consistent account of the occurrence and despite the fact that they have been subjected to the hard ordeal of cross-examination by the defence nothing has come out as may be supposed to have discredited their testimonies; that the assailants and the witnesses having been the close neighbours it was quite natural and possible that even in absence of any extraneous light the witnesses could have seen and recognized the accused; that the FIR has been promptly lodged; that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused-appellant,hence no interference is required by this Court. Before embarking upon the facts of the case we may refer to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant rendered in the case Lahu Kamlakar Patil (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that- " there can not be uniformity in human reaction, it is also to be borne in mind that if conduct of witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour even allowing for variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. On the question of delayed examination of witnesses and when such testimony of witness is to be discarded, the Apex Court has held that- " witnesses to certain crimes may run away from scene and may also leave place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, testimony should not ordinarily be discarded. That apart, a Court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from scene. Thus, the reaction differs from individual to individual. That apart, a Court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from scene. Thus, the reaction differs from individual to individual. Though there cannot be uniformity in human reaction, it is also to be borne in accord with acceptable human behaviour even allowing for variations and examination of witness or his reporting the matter to police for the first time is too inexplicably delayed, as in the present case, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. This judgment does not help to the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record we find that Smt. Jainulnisa, the first informant is the mother of the deceased as well as mother of accused-appellant Sahabuddin. There was no reason for her to lodge an FIR against her own son. It appears from the record that on happening of the incident she could not emotionally control her and went to the police station for lodging the FIR. She gave her statement in the trial Court as P.W.1 on 21.8.1985 i.e. exactly one year after the incident committed on 21.8.1984. During this period, she though that as one of her son was murdered, the other son accused is in jail and she was all alone to look after the property, therefore, on second thought she had changed her statement in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination denying the version of the FIR having seen the incident or having lodged the FIR at all. She does not deny her thumb impression on the FIR but has stated that her thumb impression was taken by the police on the blank paper. If she had not gone to the police station how could the police took the thumb impression on the FIR is not explained by her at all. Motive for the murder is explicitly clear as Nizamuddin wanted to part away with the family property and donate it to the masjid. The property is one thing which creates enemies. If she had not gone to the police station how could the police took the thumb impression on the FIR is not explained by her at all. Motive for the murder is explicitly clear as Nizamuddin wanted to part away with the family property and donate it to the masjid. The property is one thing which creates enemies. P.W.2, Ismail was related to them and in the circumstances mentioned above, one son of Smt. Jainulnisa had died and another was accused in the murder of his brother, it is not unnatural that Smt. Jainulnisa had gone with P.W.2 Ismail after 12 days of the incident for mutation of her name in the revenue records as she was only person having control over the family property at the relevant time. It is in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that she had tried her best to distort her evidence to benefit her son accused Sahabuddin. The other minor contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding application made by the deceased about a month prior to the incident to P.W.2 Ismail regarding donating the property to the masjid pale into insignificance in view of the ocular statement made by P.W.1 in the FIR being mother of both the accused and the deceased. In so far as the question of source of light is concerned, it is evident that in the month of August there is enough light at 7.00 to 7.30 P.M. in which a person known with the family members can be recognized. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the accused escaped no person of the village came at the spot till morning and he remained on the spot whole of the night whereas P.W.7, Niyazuddin, the scribe of the FIR has stated that he had arrived at the spot after about 25 minutes after the incident, shows that P.W.7 never visited the spot appears to be incorrect. It is evident from the statement of P.W.2, who has stated that no person of the village had come at the spot. He did not say that P.W.7, the scribe of the FIR had not come at the spot, therefore, the FIR cannot be said to be doubtful. Similarly, there is fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. He did not say that P.W.7, the scribe of the FIR had not come at the spot, therefore, the FIR cannot be said to be doubtful. Similarly, there is fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. We find from the record that P.W.1, Smt. Jainulnisa remained at the place of incident the whole night since the time of alleged murder till morning, hence how could she get the FIR written by P.W.7, the answer lies in the record itself from which it appears that P.W.7 Niyazuddin, the scribe of the FIR has stated that he had arrived at the spot after about 25 minutes after the incident , deceased's mother Smt. Jainulnisa was present at the spot, therefore, written report could have been written by the scribe at the place of incident. It is settled law that any minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses will not make the prosecution story doubtful. Appellant Sahabuddin fled away immediately from the spot after committing the murder of his brother Nizamuddin. When there are ocular witnesses, the motive as well as minor contradictions pale into insignificance. The fact is that Smt. Jainulnisa wanted to donate her share property to the masjid. This desire of Smt. Jainulnisa was not liked by the brother of accused Sahabuddin. The murder of Nizamuddin has been committed by accused Sahabuddin which was witnessed by mother Smt. Jainulnisa, who lodged the FIR. Normally, a mother would not like to lodge an FIR against her own son unless and until she in a emotional movement wanted the guilty person to be brought to justice. P.W.1 Smt. Jainulnisa after second thought had tried to disown her own FIR lodged by her in order to save her only one son alive i.e. accused Sahabuddin. There is no material contradictions in the statements of witnesses and prosecution story which can be looked into in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the conduct of mother Smt. Jainulnisa in lodging the FIR is quite natural. For the reasons stated above and for the reasons given by the trial Court in its judgment we are of the considered view that it has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellant as stated above. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————