Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1118 (ALL)

DHARAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-05-07

OM PRAKASH, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants Dharam Singh, Banshi and Ram Singh alias Gautam against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1982 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1982 under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”), Police Station Husainganj, District Fatehpur whereby the accused-appellants Dharam Singh, Banshi and Ram Singh alias Gautam have been found guilty for committing the murder of Ram Bali and have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. It is reported that appellant Ram Singh alias Gautam died during pendency of appeal, therefore, his appeal has been abated. Thus, the appeal is being decided only against the appellants Dharam Singh and Banshi. 3. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that a written report dated 9.4.1981 was submitted by the informant Chandra Pal mentioning therein that there was some dispute between Chandrapal (informant) and his khandani Srikrishan. The accused persons, being friendly to Srikrishan, used to take undue interest in their matters. Deceased Ram Bali objected to it and told the accused not to interfere in his personal matters. This annoyed Dharam Singh, Banshi and Ram Singh and in this background on 9.4.1981 at about 3:00 p.m. when Ram Bali, cousin of Chandra Pal, was returning from village Niyani and had reached near the house of Dharam Singh in village Kharagpur, P.S. Husainganj, the accused Dharam Singh wielded a lathi blow on his head, as a result of which he fell down and thereupon the accused Bansi and Ram Singh alias Gautam caused him head injuries with bricks. Informant, Bhimsen, Raghubar and Baijnath, on hearing the shrieks of Ram Bali, reached at the scene of occurrence and saw the incident as above. They also challenged the accused-persons, who fled away from the place of occurrence. The deceased was alive at that time and was unconscious, therefore, he was taken to the police station concerned on a bullock cart and the F.I.R. was lodged. It was mentioned in the report that deceased received several injuries. The written report submitted by the informant is Exhibit Ka-3. 4. The deceased was alive at that time and was unconscious, therefore, he was taken to the police station concerned on a bullock cart and the F.I.R. was lodged. It was mentioned in the report that deceased received several injuries. The written report submitted by the informant is Exhibit Ka-3. 4. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-3), chick First Information Report (in short “the F.I.R.”) Ex.Ka-4 was registered on the same day i.e. 9.4.1981 at 18:10 hours under Sections 323, 308, 338 IPC, Police Station Husainganj, District Fatehpur. Entry in the General Diary (in short “the G.D.”) was also made at the same time at serial No. 22, copy of which is Ex.Ka-5. Investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Jagjivan Singh, Prosecution Witness 7 (in short “the P.W.”). 5. The injured was sent to the District Hospital, Fatehpur on the same day. Injuries of Ram Bali were also examined on the same day at 19:15 hours, who was brought by Constable C.P. No. 99 Puniram (P.W.6) to the District Hospital, Fatehpur. Following injuries were found by the Medical Officer (Emergency) on the body of the injured : 1. Bleeding left ear. 2. Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on left occipital post head 6 cm. back from left ear. 3. Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on left occipital post head 8 cm. back from ear. 4. Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scalp deep on left part of post head 8 cm. back left ear. 5. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on left part of post head 1 cm. upwards from No. 4. 6. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scalp deep on left part temporal post 5 cm. from ear. 7. Lacerated wound 2 ½ cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on lateral end left eyebrow. 8. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on left frontal post head 3 cm. upwards from eyebrow. 9. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on front fore head 5 cm. upwards from boney of nose. 10. Abrasion on an area 2 ½ cm. x 1 ½ cm. on right fore head 2 ½ cm. upwards from eyebrow. 11. Bleeding from nose both nostrils. 12. Traumatic swelling right palm with bony deformity advise x-ray. 13. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on front fore head 5 cm. upwards from boney of nose. 10. Abrasion on an area 2 ½ cm. x 1 ½ cm. on right fore head 2 ½ cm. upwards from eyebrow. 11. Bleeding from nose both nostrils. 12. Traumatic swelling right palm with bony deformity advise x-ray. 13. Lacerated wound 1/2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on dorsum left palm base of finger. 14. Traumatic swelling left palm. X-ray advised. Injured was in unconscious state. Injuries No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 were kept under observation. Other injuries were simple in nature and the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Duration was fresh. X-ray was also advised. Formal proof was dispensed with by the appellants admitting the genuineness of the documents under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Proceudre (in short “the Cr.P.C.”), therefore, this document is marked as Ex.Ka-7 during trial. 6. The Medical Officer, District Hospital, Fatehpur through Ex.Ka-2 informed the S.H.O., Kotwali, Fatehpur that deceased Ram Bali, aged about 35 years, was admitted in the hospital as police medico legal case in the night. However, he died in the morning and his dead body was kept in the mortuary. On this information concerned Police reached at the mortuary of the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka.-11) on 10.4.1981 at 10:00 a.m. alongwith the challan nash, photo nash, letters to medical officer and reserve inspector. 7. Autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.4.1981 at 5:00 p.m. Deceased was found aged about 35 years with an average built. Duration of death was shown about half day at the time of post-mortem examination. Rigor mortis was found present in all the four limbs. Eyes were closed. Multiple stitched wound on left side with fracture of left temporal, left parietal and occipital bones were found on the body of the deceased. Membranes were found congested and cerebral haemorrhage was present. Heart was full of clotted blood. Stomach was empty. Digested food was present in the small intestine and the large intestine was full of feacal matter. According to the doctor, death of the deceased had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, which is marked as Ex.Ka-1. 8. Heart was full of clotted blood. Stomach was empty. Digested food was present in the small intestine and the large intestine was full of feacal matter. According to the doctor, death of the deceased had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, which is marked as Ex.Ka-1. 8. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 323, 338, 308 IPC, but the deceased died in the hospital on the next day during treatment. On receiving the information and post-mortem report, case was converted into the offence under Section 304 IPC on the basis of direction given by the Station Officer (in short “the S.O.”) concerned. This document is Ex. Ka-6. 9. Investigating officer Jagjivan Singh (P.W.7) visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka.-8) and also the memo (Ex.Ka.-9) regarding blood stained and plain earth taken from the spot as well as blood stained bricks (Ex.Ka-10). He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet against all the appellants for the offence under Section 304 IPC, which is Ex.Ka-12 on record. 10. The Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case took the cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where charges against all the appellants were framed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with 34 IPC to which the appellants denied and claimed trial. 11. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W.1. Dr. Swatantra Singh, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Fatehpur, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ram Bali and also proved the post-mortem report. P.W.2 Chandra Pal, the informant, P.W.3 Bhim Sen, P.W.4 Raghubar are the witnesses of fact, who have supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 Constable Afat Ram is the scribe of the chick report and G.D. P.W.6 Constable Puniram brought the injured to the hospital for medical examination and P.W.7 Sub-Inspector Jagjivan Singh has investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 12. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded in which they have categorically denied the prosecution case and the evidence. 13. 12. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded in which they have categorically denied the prosecution case and the evidence. 13. Appellant Dharam Singh has specifically stated that an incident of shooting took place between Rampal, father-in-law of the informant and the accused’s maternal uncle Ganga Bishun in Bargadiya Fair in which one Budanu Loniha was done to death and the aunt of Chandra Pal also received injuries, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. 14. Appellant Banshi has categorically stated that the deceased Ram Bali had sold all his agricultural property to one Amarlal (Sadu of Banshi), therefore, the informant Chandra Pal might have a grudge against Banshi as he believed that Banshi was instrumental in getting the said property sold out, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. 15. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellants in their defense, but an application was moved for spot inspection, as a result whereof the Presiding Officer of the trial Court also inspected the spot on 30.11.1982. The inspection note (paper No. 24) was also prepared by him. 16. Trial Court after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 17. P.W.1 Dr. Swatantra Singh has stated that on 10.4.1981, he was posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital Fatehpur. He had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ram Bali on the same day at 5:00 p.m. All the facts have been recorded in the post-mortem report (Ex.Ka.1) by this witness. As per this witness, deceased Ram Bali had died in the hospital where he was under treatment. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. Multiple stitched wound present over left side scalp in occipital parietal, temporal and frontal region with fracture of under lining bones except frontal bone of left side. 2. Blood clots present over left external ear and both nostril. 3. Traumatic swelling right hand with fracture of fifth meta carpel bone. 4. Traumatic swelling left hand. 18. All these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the deceased. 2. Blood clots present over left external ear and both nostril. 3. Traumatic swelling right hand with fracture of fifth meta carpel bone. 4. Traumatic swelling left hand. 18. All these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the deceased. It has also been stated that injuries found on the body of the deceased might have caused by lathi, gumma and bricks and Ram Bali had died in the morning of 10.4.1981 before 6:15 a.m. Information regarding death has been sent by the hospital authority and the same has also been proved by this witness, which is Ex.Ka-2. 19. In the cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that stomach of the deceased was empty. Digested food was present in the small intestine. If a person receives injury and become unconscious, then his/her digestive system activity does not stop, but slows down. In the opinion of this witness, if the deceased continuously remained unconscious after receiving the injuries, then he might have had taken food 8 to 10 hours before his death. 20. P.W.2 Chandra Pal, who is the informant, deposed that he knows the accused-persons Dharam Singh, Banshi and Ram Singh alias Gautam, who belong to his village. Banshi and Ram Singh are real brothers and of Lonia caste. Dharam Singh belongs to Yadav caste. This witness also belongs to Lonia caste. Deceased was his cousin, who was unmarried. There was some dispute between this witness and deceased on one hand and Shrikishan on the other belonging to the same village. All the above-named accused-persons were very close to Srikishan. Deceased Ram Bali had told the accused Dharam Singh several times not to interfere in their personal affairs as Srikishan happens to be his khandani. Dharam Singh took ill of these utterances and was prejudiced against the deceased. 21. On the day of incident, the informant was present at his door. It was about 3:00 p.m. He heard the noise (hue-cry) from the house of accused Dharam Singh and he at once rushed to the spot. Witnesses Raghubar, Baijnath and Bhim Sen also reached there. They saw Dharam Singh giving a lathi blow on the head of the deceased following which he fell down. Ram Bali had been returning from village Niyani. When Ram Bali fell down, Banshi and Ram Singh started beating him with gumma and bricks. Witnesses Raghubar, Baijnath and Bhim Sen also reached there. They saw Dharam Singh giving a lathi blow on the head of the deceased following which he fell down. Ram Bali had been returning from village Niyani. When Ram Bali fell down, Banshi and Ram Singh started beating him with gumma and bricks. On being challenged, the accused-persons ran towards the southern side. When the witnesses reached near the deceased, they saw the deceased lying in an unconscious state with bleeding injuries. This witness arranged a bullock cart and took the deceased at P.S. Husainganj. On the way, this witness at Husainganj bus station prepared the written report (Ex.Ka.-3). Thereafter, he reached the police station and submitted the written report. On the basis of written report, case was registered at the police station concerned and the deceased, who was unconscious at that time due to injuries received by him, was sent to the District Hospital through the concerned police personnel. Deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital during treatment on the next day. As per this witness, Baijnath, who was also an eye-witness, was languishing in jail at the time of deposition of this witness in the Court. House belonging to Ram Dhani situated towards western side of the place of occurrence is not the residential house of Ram Dhani, but a cattle house. Residential house of Ram Dhani is situated towards the northern side 70 - 80 paces from the place of occurrence. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence. 22. P.W.3 Bhim Sen deposed that he knows all the accused persons, who belong to his village. He also knows the deceased Ram Bali. On the date of incident, this witness was present at his house. It was about 3:00 p.m., he heard the noise from the house of accused Dharam Singh. Then this witness alongwith Chandra Pal, Raghubar, Baijnath rushed to the spot and saw the accused Dharam Singh giving a lathi blow on the head of the deceased Ram Bali, which fell him down. Accused Banshi and Ram Singh also caused several injuries with the use of Gumma. When they challenged the accused persons, they fled away towards the southern direction. When these witnesses reached near Ram Bali, they saw injuries on his body. Blood was also found on the earth and Ram Bali was unconscious at that time. Accused Banshi and Ram Singh also caused several injuries with the use of Gumma. When they challenged the accused persons, they fled away towards the southern direction. When these witnesses reached near Ram Bali, they saw injuries on his body. Blood was also found on the earth and Ram Bali was unconscious at that time. The witness Chandra Pal took Ram Bali on a bullock cart to P.S. concerned. Later on, Ram Bali died. Investigating officer visited the place of occurrence and blood stained and plain earth was taken into possession by the I.O. in the presence of this witness. A memo was prepared on which the aforementioned witness put his thumb impression. I.O. has also taken into custody the two gummas said to be used in commission of the offence and also prepared a memo on which the witness put his thumb impression. 23. P.W.4 Raghubar has stated that he knows all the accused persons. Deceased was also the resident of the village of this witness. Majority of persons belong to Lohnia community in his village. On the day of incident, this witness was present at his residence. It was about 2:45 p.m., he heard the noise from the house of accused Dharam Singh and reached there. Witnesses Chandra Pal, Bhim Sen and Baijnath also reached there. This witness saw that Dharam Singh causing lathi blow to the deceased Ram Bali which fell him down. Then accused Gautam and Banshi also caused injuries to him with the use of Gumma. When they challenged the accused persons, they ran away towards the southern direction. Ram Bali was taken on the bullock cart by Chandra Pal to the concerned police station. Later on, this witness heard that Ram Bali has died. As per this witness, I.O. has visited the place of occurrence and has taken the blood stained and plain soil and also pieces of Gumma and have also prepared memo. This witness has put his signature on these papers. 24. P.W.5 Constable Afat Ram has stated that on 9.4.1981, he was posted as Constable/Moharrir at P.S. Husainganj. On the basis of written report Ex.Ka.-3, this witness has prepared Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka.-4 in his handwriting. Information had also been entered in the G.D. at Rapat No. 22 at 18:10 hours, which is Ex.Ka-4. Carbon copy of the G.D. has also been proved by this witness as Ex.Ka-5. On the basis of written report Ex.Ka.-3, this witness has prepared Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka.-4 in his handwriting. Information had also been entered in the G.D. at Rapat No. 22 at 18:10 hours, which is Ex.Ka-4. Carbon copy of the G.D. has also been proved by this witness as Ex.Ka-5. On 21.4.1981, this witness has converted the case on the basis of information received from the hospital and on the direction of the S.O. concerned into the offence under Section 304 IPC through Rapat No. 10 at 8:30 hours. This witness has also proved the document as Ex.Ka.-6. Deceased was taken to hospital by constable Puniram after registration of the case vide letter Ex.Ka.-7. 25. P.W.6 Constable Puniram has stated that on 9.4.1981 he was posted at P.S. Husainganj. He had brought the deceased Ram Bali through majroobi chhitthi Ex.Ka-7 at District Hospital, Fatehpur for treatment. The deceased was admitted in the hospital. Injury report prepared by the Doctor had also been submitted by this witness at the police station concerned. This witness had identified the injured before the Doctor. 26. P.W.7 S.I. Jagjivan Singh has stated that on 9.4.1981, he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Husainganj. He was entrusted with the investigation of this case. At the time of registering the case, he was present at the police station. He had recorded the statement of Constable Puniram at the P.S. concerned on 10.4.1981. He also visited the scene of incident on that day. Accused Banshi was found in the village and was arrested. Witnesses Raghubar, Baijnath etc. were also interrogated by this witness. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-8 mentioning the details therein. He also took plain and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and kept the same in separate containers and also sealed them. Memo was also prepared by him. Two pieces of bricks were also taken into possession and memo in this regard was prepared keeping the pieces into a sealed cover. The memos are Ex.Ka-9 & 10. He has also interrogated the witness Bhim Sen. On receiving the death report, inquest report had been prepared by one police personnel Syed Shamim Ahmed Naqvi, who had worked with him. Two pieces of bricks were also taken into possession and memo in this regard was prepared keeping the pieces into a sealed cover. The memos are Ex.Ka-9 & 10. He has also interrogated the witness Bhim Sen. On receiving the death report, inquest report had been prepared by one police personnel Syed Shamim Ahmed Naqvi, who had worked with him. This witness has proved the writing and signature of Syed Shamim Ahmed, who died in an accident, on the inquest report marked as Ex.Ka-11 prepared by Syed Shamim Ahmed. This witness has also proved the material Ex.Ka-1 & 2 - blood stained earth and plain earth and also material Ex.Ka-3 & 4 regarding the pieces of the bricks. On 4.5.1981, he received the post-mortem report at police station concerned and after completing the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants as Ex.Ka.-12. 27. We have heard Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. Shri Rajiv Sharma for the State and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 28. Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. But the trial Court has illegally appreciated the prosecution evidence and reached a wrong conclusion convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. Witnesses who claimed to be the eye-witnesses actually have not seen the occurrence. Since they were interested/relative witnesses, they have made false deposition before the Court. Deceased was habitual offender and was of bad character. He was beaten up by some unknown person at some other place and was thrown away at the place of occurrence. Assailing the finding recorded by the trial Court on the point of First Information Report and also referring the injury report (Ex.Ka.-7), it was argued that the First Information Report was not in existence at the time mentioned in the Chick report. There is contradictory statement regarding injuries caused by lathi and bricks. Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution version. Witnesses have exaggerated the prosecution case. Had the witnesses, claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses, were present on the spot, they would not have mentioned in the written report that only one lathi blow was given by the accused Dharam Singh to the deceased. Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution version. Witnesses have exaggerated the prosecution case. Had the witnesses, claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses, were present on the spot, they would not have mentioned in the written report that only one lathi blow was given by the accused Dharam Singh to the deceased. It thus follows from the aforesaid that they were not present on the spot and had not seen the occurrence. Houses of the witnesses admittedly are situated within the distance of 200 to 300 paces from the scene of occurrence. It is improbable that they would have heard the shrieks of the deceased from such a distance. Investigating officer has also not made proper investigation and has been guilty of laches, which clearly creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. He has also not recorded the statement of one Srikishan. Baijnath is also said to be an eye-witness, but he has not been examined. Therefore, it shall be presumed that had he been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the houses are also situated near the place of occurrence, but the persons belonging to those houses have also not been examined. Therefore, presumption against the prosecution should be drawn. Defense version that incident had taken place at some other place and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case is probable one. It was further argued that merely because formal proof of the execution of the injury report and post-mortem report was dispensed with by the appellants, that by itself would not amount to admission of the contents of the documents. Prosecution has also not been able to establish the time of occurrence. Motive projected/alleged by the prosecution is also not sufficient to commit the said offence by the appellants. Thus, the prayer for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment and order has been made. 29. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that incident has taken place during day hours in front of the house of the appellant Dharam Singh. The Presiding Officer has himself inspected the place of occurrence on the request of the appellants and found that the noise (shrieks) made by the deceased at the time of occurrence can easily be heard by the witnesses from their houses. The Presiding Officer has himself inspected the place of occurrence on the request of the appellants and found that the noise (shrieks) made by the deceased at the time of occurrence can easily be heard by the witnesses from their houses. The presence of the witnesses on the spot at the time of occurrence is probable and natural one. Since deceased was unconscious during treatment, his dying declaration could not be recorded as per law. The time, place, and manner of occurrence have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Even assuming for the sake of argument that any criminal case was going on against the deceased, yet it cannot be inferred that eye-witnesses are not telling the truth. No one has licence to commit murder of any person only on the ground that he was of a bad character. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version. Injuries found on the person of the deceased have been properly explained by the witnesses. Improvement, exaggeration or contradiction elucidated by the appellants during the course of arguments are not of such importance which affect the credibility and trust-worthiness of the eye-witness accounts. Laches or mistakes committed by the Investigating Officer are also not of such vital nature which affect the prosecution case. Appellants cannot take benefit of those facts, which were not put to witnesses in trial for explaining the circumstances in the case from which an offence can be said to be made out. Non-examination of one Baijnath is also not of much importance. Quantity of the witnesses is not material rather quality of the evidence. Referring to the impugned judgment of the trial Court, submission was made that appeal be dismissed and impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court be affirmed. 30. We have considered the rival factual and legal contentions urged on behalf of both the parties and very carefully perused the evidence on record to examine the correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned judgment against the accused persons. 31. The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has observed that : (i) Prosecution has not been able to establish the alleged motive beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) Witnesses examined as eye-witness accounts are natural and probable witnesses. 31. The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has observed that : (i) Prosecution has not been able to establish the alleged motive beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) Witnesses examined as eye-witness accounts are natural and probable witnesses. Their testimony made before the Court are fully reliable. (iii) Appellants have not adduced any evidence to establish the enmity between the witnesses and the accused persons. (iv) Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version. Contents found in the stomach of the deceased also support the prosecution on the point of time of occurrence. (v) Distance between the place of occurrence and the houses of the witnesses was such that the witnesses would have heard the hue and cry of the deceased and rushed to the spot. When the witnesses reached the spot, the accused persons were beating the deceased. On being challenged by the witnesses, the assailants fled away from the spot. (vi) The time and place of occurrence mentioned in the chick F.I.R. and lodging of F.I.R. is fully proved. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Preparation of the written report in the way as it has been stated is probable and possible. (vii) The appellants have failed to rebut the prosecution case against them by any cogent evidence. Injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, trial Court has held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 32. Before analyzing the finding recorded by the trial Court in consonance with the arguments advanced by the parties, we would like to quote the relevant paragraphs 7 to 18 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, JT 2013 (12) SC 117, which are as under : “7. It is a settled legal proposition that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained may discredit the entire case of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the Court. However, the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the Court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the Court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent or probable, the Court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is given by the doctor. “It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses’ account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the ‘variable’ keeping the medical evidence as the ‘constant’.” 7. Where the eye-witnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eye-witnesses’ account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. (Vide: Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 ; State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005 ; Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 ; and Rakesh v. State of M.P., (2011) 9 SCC 698 ). 8. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE: 9. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE: 9. In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held: “In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” 9.1 A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Tehsildar Singh and another v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; Pudhu Raja and another v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, JT 2012 (9) SC 252; and Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557 ). 10. by Inspector of Police, JT 2012 (9) SC 252; and Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557 ). 10. Thus, it is evident that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the Court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. EVIDENCE OF A RELATED/INTERESTED WITNESSES: 11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh and another v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari and others v. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 308 ). 12. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 SC 1390 , this Court held: “5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a “highly interested” witness because she “is the wife of the deceased”..........For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an ‘interested’ witness. She is related to the deceased. ‘Related’ is not equivalent to ‘interested. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. She is related to the deceased. ‘Related’ is not equivalent to ‘interested. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents.” (Emphasis added) See also: Chakali Maddilety and others v. State of A.P., AIR 2010 SC 3473 ). 13. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 5039 , while dealing with the case this Court held: “7...........Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere ‘chance witnesses’. The expression ‘chance witness’ is borrowed from countries where every man’s home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence.” 14. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased. DELAY IN LODGING FIR AND ITS CONTENTS: 15. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The Court has to examine the explanation furnished by the prosecution for explaining the delay. There may be various circumstances particularly the number of victims, atmosphere prevailing at the scene of incidence, the complainant may be scared and fearing the action against him in pursuance of the incident that has taken place. The Court has to examine the explanation furnished by the prosecution for explaining the delay. There may be various circumstances particularly the number of victims, atmosphere prevailing at the scene of incidence, the complainant may be scared and fearing the action against him in pursuance of the incident that has taken place. If the prosecution explains the delay, the Court should not reject the case of the prosecution solely on this ground. Therefore, the entire incident as narrated by the witnesses has to be construed and examined to decide whether there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes to the root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is some unexplained delay, the Court has to take into consideration whether it can be termed as abnormal. (Vide: P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P., AIR 2003 SC 574 ; and State of U.P. v. Munesh, AIR 2013 SC 147 ). 16. It is also a settled legal proposition that merely not mentioning all the names of all the accused or their overt acts elaborately or details of injuries said to have been suffered, could not render the FIR vague or unreliable. The FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all the facts. More so, it is quite natural that all the names and details may not be given in the FIR, where a large number of accused are involved. NON-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE: 17. This Court in Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. and another v. Bhagwanthuva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. and others, AIR 2013 SC 1204 , examined the effect of non-cross-examination of witness on a particular fact/circumstance and held as under: “31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (Emphasis supplied) (See also: Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8) SC 181; and Gian Chand and others v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (10) SC 515). 18. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the defence cannot rely on nor can the Court base its finding on a particular fact or issue on which the witness has not made any statement in his examination-in-chief and the defence has not cross-examined him on the said aspect of the matter.” DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION : 33. Appellants have challenged the existence of F.I.R. on the date and time mentioned in the chick F.I.R. In this respect, it is relevant that offence is said to have taken place on 9.4.1981 at about 3:00 p.m. Deceased, who was unconscious and alive at that time, was taken by P.W.2 Chandra Pal on a bullock cart to the police station concerned within a short span of time. Written report was got prepared at Husainganj bus station. Chick report Ex.Ka-4 revealed that this document came in existence on 9.4.1981 at 18:10 hours. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about six miles. Written report was got prepared at Husainganj bus station. Chick report Ex.Ka-4 revealed that this document came in existence on 9.4.1981 at 18:10 hours. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about six miles. Looking to the distance and the means for carrying the deceased to the police station concerned which was situated six miles away from the place of occurrence, duration of three hours in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be inordinate delay or giving room for suspicion. Injury report Ex.Ka-7 also reveals that the deceased was admitted in the District Hospital, Fatehpur on the same day at 7:15 p.m., after an hour after registration of the case at the police station concerned. The injured was brought to the hospital by the police personnel carrying chitthi majrooobi. It was also mentioned in the injury report that deceased was admitted as medico legal case. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was an occasion to prepare the written report in the village concerned itself, but the written report was prepared on the way clearly indicates that the written report was prepared in the morning after the death of the deceased. Reference was made to the police papers as well as the letters sent to the police from the hospital concerned. 34. On scrutiny of the evidence and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the present case there is no delay in lodging of the First Information Report. Looking to the distance, three hours’ time consumed in lodging the First Information Report is possible and probable. Merely because the informant got prepared the First Information Report on the way at Husainganj bus station, it would not give rise to a conclusion or would necessarily imply that the First Information Report was prepared on the next day of the incident. Thus, contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on this point is not acceptable. Finding recorded by the trial Court is also not liable to be interfered with for the reasons discussed above. Prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the basis of contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on this score. 35. Thus, contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on this point is not acceptable. Finding recorded by the trial Court is also not liable to be interfered with for the reasons discussed above. Prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the basis of contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on this score. 35. In the instant matter, from the perusal of record, it transpires that the deceased Ram Bali initially was admitted in the District Hospital, Fatehpur on 9.4.1981 at 7:15 p.m. as medico legal case after registration of the case. Injuries found on the person of the deceased at the time of medical examination have been noted down by the Doctor and have been referred to the earlier part of the judgment by us. The defense, during trial, had made the following endorsement on this document at the stage of prosecution evidence : “Formal proof dispensed with genuineness of the document under Section 294 Cr.P.C.”. Since the deceased died on 10.4.1981 in the morning hours, the post-mortem was conducted on the same day at 5:00 p.m. on the body of the deceased and a post-mortem report was prepared. Although, doctor conducting the post-mortem has been examined as P.W.1 to prove this document, but during trial, the defense has also admitted the genuineness of the document making endorsement on it as follows : “Genuineness admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C.”. 36. Following submission has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the above issue : (a) The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case, time of the occurrence does not corroborate with the prosecution evidence; (b) Doctor, who has medically examined the deceased at initial stage, has also not been examined to prove the injury report; (c) only from dispensing the formal proof of the execution of these two documents, it cannot be held that appellants have admitted the genuineness of the contents of the documents; (d) Injury report and post-mortem report, until and unless it is proved by its author, cannot be read as evidence and is not a substantive piece of evidence. 37. Before analyzing the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find it necessary to quote the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. and Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. “Section 294 Cr.P.C.-No formal proof of certain documents. 37. Before analyzing the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find it necessary to quote the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. and Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. “Section 294 Cr.P.C.-No formal proof of certain documents. (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” “Section 58 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Facts admitted need not be proved. —No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.” 38. It is not disputed in this case that the appellants have admitted the injury report and post-mortem report and both the documents have been exhibited as proved documents during trial. 39. Section 294 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that if the genuineness of any document filed by the prosecution or the accused under Sub-section (1) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. is not disputed by the opposite party, Sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. comes into play and such document may be read as substantive evidence. This question has come up several times before this Court and also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration. This question has come up several times before this Court and also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the issue before the Full Bench for considering the true interpretation of Section 294 Cr.P.C. as the Division Bench dealing with the Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1999 (Boraiah alias Shekar v. State) was not in agreement with the proposition of law laid down earlier by a division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjinappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2000 Kant 3501. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Boraiah alias Shekar v. State, 2003 Cr LJ 1031, considering the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and a full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farid Hussinsab v. The State of Maharashtra, 1983 Cri LJ 487 and also the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Saddiq v. State, 1981 Cri LJ 379, approved the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanne Gowda alias Gopala v. State by Sakaleshpur Rural Police, ILR 2001 Kant 2660, agreeing with the views taken by the Bombay High Court and the Allahabad High Court in the cases of Shaikh Farid Hussinsab (supra) and Saddiq (supra). The Supreme Court overruled the Division Bench view passed in Anjinappa case (supra) and has held that if the genuineness of any document has not been disputed by the opposite party, the same shall be read as substantive evidence and can be exhibited as proved document. 40. Regarding admissibility and acceptance of the contents of the injury report and the post-mortem report as genuine document, Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the matter of Akhtar and others v. State Of Uttaranchal, [2009] INSC 708, has reiterated the same view. 41. Besides this, it has also been held that if the Court dealing with the matter requires to examine the author of the document,the Court has inherent power to examine the doctor under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 42. At the cost of repetition we may mention here that the injury report will not fall in the category of ‘Non Proved Document’ if the genuineness of the documents are admitted by the defence side. In such a situation, examination of the author of the injury report and post-mortem report is not required. 43. At the cost of repetition we may mention here that the injury report will not fall in the category of ‘Non Proved Document’ if the genuineness of the documents are admitted by the defence side. In such a situation, examination of the author of the injury report and post-mortem report is not required. 43. The injury report and the post-mortem report both shall be taken as substantive piece of evidence and the trial Court has rightly marked it as Ex.Ka-7 and Ex.Ka-1. 44. As far as the medical evidence is concerned, injury report (Ex.Ka-7) reveals 14 injuries. Duration is fresh. Injuries are either lacerated wounds or abrasions but few of them are traumatic swelling. All the injuries are said to have been caused with the use of blunt weapon. The injured was unconscious at the time of admission. Deceased Ram Bali had been admitted in the hospital on the same day of the incident at 7:15 p.m. and he was under treatment. As per information sent to the police by the hospital authority, the deceased died in the morning of 10.4.1981. Dr. Swatantra Singh (P.W.1) has opined that injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased and could have been caused by lathi, gumma and bricks. It has also been opined that deceased had died on 10.4.1981 before 6:15 a.m. In the cross-examination, this witness (P.W.1) has accepted that stomach of the deceased was empty and in the small intestine, there was some digested food. In the opinion of this witness, if any person becomes unconscious due to injuries, then in that situation, digestive process remains continued. At the most, it may slow down. It has also been expressed by this witness that if the deceased after receiving injuries was continuously unconscious, it was possible that he would have taken food approximately 8 to 10 hours before his death. 45. Referring the opinion expressed by the doctor, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place at 3:00 p.m., death of the deceased is said to have taken place at about 6:15 a.m. on the next day. If the duration between the incident and the time of death is calculated, then it comes to about 15 hours. If the duration between the incident and the time of death is calculated, then it comes to about 15 hours. Thus, on this ground, it was submitted that prosecution has not been able to establish the time of the occurrence. 46. Statements of P.W.1 reveals that some pasty material has been found in the small intestine of the deceased at the time of post-mortem, the deceased remained unconscious after receiving the injuries till his death, he was returning from village Niani in the afternoon at about 3:00 p.m., therefore, it was possible that he might have taken food in the village Niyani. The opinion expressed by the P.W.1 about the time of taking the food may vary few hours. No specific question has been asked by the appellants from P.W.1 on this point, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, 2013 Crl LJ 4618, we are also of the view that finding recorded by the trial Court regarding time of incident cannot be said to be illegal, improper or perverse. P.W.1 Dr. Swatantra Singh has clearly stated that stomach was empty and pasty material was found in the small intestine, meaning thereby that almost digestive process had come to an end. In this situation, variation in the time of taking food shown by P.W.1 would be of few hours also. Since on this point, no question has been put by the appellants to P.W.1 Dr. Swatantra Singh, and consequently no opportunity was given to P.W.1 to explain this fact. In our considered view medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution case on the point of time of incident. 47. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Akhtar and others (supra) has held that in such a situation there is absolutely no reason to discredit the evidence of three eye-witnesses whose presence cannot be doubted. The position in law is made clear by the Supreme Court in Sarbul Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp(3) SCC 678 and Virendra @ Buddhu and another v. State of U.P., 2008(15) SCALE 283 . Thus merely on this basis, that there is variation regarding time of taking of food in the statement of expert witnesses and eye-witnesses, it cannot be said that the time of incident has not been proved. 48. Thus merely on this basis, that there is variation regarding time of taking of food in the statement of expert witnesses and eye-witnesses, it cannot be said that the time of incident has not been proved. 48. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court on this count. 49. Now the Court proceeds to take up the motive part. Clear motive has been alleged by the prosecution in the First Information Report and the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have also supported the motive alleged in the First Information Report, but the trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that alleged motive has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Since the finding has not been challenged by the prosecution either way, therefore, we are of the view that there is no necessity to go in detail on this point. 50. So far as the motive alleged by the defence regarding false implication in the case is concerned, prosecution witnesses have admitted that the deceased was involved in one case and he had been in jail for some time, but this fact alone is not sufficient to hold that some other persons might have caused injuries to the deceased at some other place and thereafter the deceased was thrown at the scene of occurrence shown in the F.I.R. The plea taken by the appellants is not believable. It may also be noted here that deceased was alive till the morning of 10.4.1981. It is improbable or unbelievable that someone had caused injuries to the deceased at some other place and thereafter had thrown him alive at the place of occurrence shown in the F.I.R. Thus, finding recorded by the trial Court that plea taken by the defense regarding false implication is also not believable is correct and legal. We find no infirmity in this finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court. It would be pertinent to mention here that enmity is a double edged weapon. It may be a reason for commission of crime, on the other hand it may also be a reason for false implication. Therefore, only on this basis, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved or brushed aside specially when prosecution has come up with the case that there are eye-witness account. It may be a reason for commission of crime, on the other hand it may also be a reason for false implication. Therefore, only on this basis, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved or brushed aside specially when prosecution has come up with the case that there are eye-witness account. Plea taken by the appellants in the statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. and also suggestion put to the witnesses on point of enmity and false implication are also not believable. Therefore, to scrutinize the finding recorded by the trial Court, the presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot at the time of incident and the credibility of their statements have to be carefully analyzed. 51. It is noteworthy here that appellants have not specifically challenged the factum of place of occurrence. No specific question was put to any of the witnesses challenging the place of occurrence, therefore, the plea taken by the appellants that the offence was committed at some other place is insignificant because only suggestion was made, however, no cogent evidence was adduced by the appellants in this regard. 52. Deceased Ram Bali is said to have gone to village Niyani on the date of incident and he was returning to his village at the time of incident. When he reached in front of the house of the appellant Dharam Singh, the present offence is said to have been committed by the accused persons. P.W.2 Chandra Pal, P.W.3 Bhim Sen, P.W.4 Raghubar and one Baijnath reached the spot hearing the hue and cry (shrieks) of the deceased when accused persons were causing injuries to the deceased. 53. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution witnesses have admitted that their houses are situated about 200 - 300 paces away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the hue and cry could not be heard from the houses of the witnesses. Hence, their presence on the spot is unnatural and improbable. 54. The peculiar fact in this matter is that at the stage of defense evidence, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court has inspected the place of occurrence on the application of the accused persons and a note as paper No. 24 has also been prepared by him. Hence, their presence on the spot is unnatural and improbable. 54. The peculiar fact in this matter is that at the stage of defense evidence, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court has inspected the place of occurrence on the application of the accused persons and a note as paper No. 24 has also been prepared by him. While analyzing the evidence of P.W.2 Chandra Pal, P.W.3 Bhim Sen and P.W.4 Raghubar, the trial Court on the basis of observation noted during course of inspection, has opined that in the village in question, audibility of the voice could easily be heard from the houses of the witnesses in the day hours also. This observation has been recorded comparing the audibility in the urban areas and rural areas. It may be mentioned here that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have clearly stated that they have heard the hue and cry of the deceased from their houses and they immediately rushed to the spot and saw the accused-appellants Dharam Singh causing lathi blow to the deceased, whereupon he fell down and then injuries were caused by gumma and bricks by other accused. Trial Court has also observed that house of the witnesses are situated in the same vicinity within a distance of 135 paces and the noise/sound raised from the place of occurrence could easily be heard by the witnesses from their houses. 55. Looking to the facts as stated hereinabove and the place of occurrence, the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to illegal, perverse or imaginary. It is based on the evidence available on record and on the basis of inspection made by it. Minor contradiction on the point of causing of injuries may be one factor and there may be improvement or exaggeration, but presence of witnesses on the spot at the time of incident cannot be doubted as all the witnesses are the residents of same vicinity and their houses are situated within the distance of audibility. Thus, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants on this point is not acceptable and the view taken by the trial Court is found supported by the evidence available on record. 56. Thus, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants on this point is not acceptable and the view taken by the trial Court is found supported by the evidence available on record. 56. So far as the relationship between the witnesses and the deceased and their interestedness is concerned, it may be mentioned here that testimony of a witness cannot be discarded only on this basis that he is a relative of the deceased. Relativeness and interestedness both are distinct aspects. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani (supra). Thus, evidence of interested witnesses cannot be disbelieved because they are relative of the deceased. Only requirement is that evidence of such witnesses shall be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. It may further be noted that relative witnesses will not leave the real culprit and falsely implicate a person who has not committed the offence to invite the fresh enmity. 57. Therefore, in our considered view, although P.W.2 Chandra Pal, P.W.3 Bhim Sen, P.W.4 Raghubar are the relative of the deceased, their presence on the spot at the time of incident is probable and natural. It is human tendency that related persons reach the spot in such a situation immediately rather than other persons. Thus, the observation recorded by the trial Court regarding the presence of P.W.2 Chandra Pal, P.W.3 Bhim Sen and P.W.4 Raghubar on the spot at the time of incident is based on the evidence available on record. No infirmity or perversity is found in the finding recorded by the trial Court. 58. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that there was an alternative route/short route available to the deceased for returning home from the village Niyani and there was no occasion for the deceased to take the longer route through the place of incident. Trial Court has made inspection of the place of occurrence and has observed that route chosen by the deceased is the shortest route, therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is also not acceptable. 59. Trial Court has made inspection of the place of occurrence and has observed that route chosen by the deceased is the shortest route, therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is also not acceptable. 59. It is the case of the eye-witness accounts examined by the prosecution that they reached the spot simultaneously and had seen the accused persons causing injuries to the deceased. When they challenged the accused persons, they ran away from the scene of occurrence. Looking to the distance between the place of occurrence and their houses, it is possible that the witnesses would have rushed simultaneously towards the place of occurrence immediately after hearing the hue and cry. The incident continued even after the arrival of the witnesses on the spot, whether deceased was also beaten by the accused persons before reaching of the witnesses on the spot can only be explained in the light of several injuries found on the body of the deceased. 60. As far as the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased and number of blows caused by the accused persons are concerned, witnesses had rushed towards the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry. It was not possible for any human being, who witnessed the incident of assault at the instance of several persons to recollect the exact number of blows caused by each and every accused separately. If there are contradictions or omissions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of number of blows or injuries, it would not by itself be sufficient to discard the evidence of the eye-witness accounts, specially when P.W.1 Dr. Swatantra Singh has clearly opined that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by blunt weapon, gumma and bricks. The witnesses have categorically, consistently and clearly deposed before the trial Court that accused Dharam Singh was armed with blunt weapon (lathi) and other co-accused Banshi and Ram Singh were having gumma and bricks. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased sustained injury as a result of lathi, gumma and bricks. Witnesses reached the spot and had seen the accused persons causing injuries to the deceased by lathi, gumma and bricks. 61. Thus, in our opinion, prosecution has been able to establish the manner of the incident and role played by the accused-appellants which finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Witnesses reached the spot and had seen the accused persons causing injuries to the deceased by lathi, gumma and bricks. 61. Thus, in our opinion, prosecution has been able to establish the manner of the incident and role played by the accused-appellants which finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Findings recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 62. In the instant matter there is no doubt that some discrepancies have crept in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but they are not material and entire prosecution case cannot be discarded on such minor discrepancies. When several witnesses narrate the same story, contradictions are bound to happen. The contradictions in the evidence are on the point whether appellant Dharam Singh had caused only one lathi blow or several blows, whether other villagers had also reached on the spot or not, the type of clothes which was worn by the deceased at the time of incident. We do not think that any witness deliberately lied on any of these points. The contradictions could be due to weak or faded memory. Another circumstance pointed out is that Baijnath was a necessary witness but was not examined by the prosecution. We do not think that it was necessary to examine Baijnath because three witnesses on the same point have been examined by the prosecution and their testimony are reliable and they are natural and probable witnesses. Apart to this P.W.2 Chandra Pal has explained the reason for non-examination of Baijnath. The view taken by us also finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chacho alias Aniyan Kanju and others v. State of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269 . Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not important that how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies is more important. The evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt. 63. There is laches on part of the I.O. as blood stained and plain earth taken from the spot have not been sent for chemical examination but this fact does not place the eye account witnesses as unworthy or unreliable. 63. There is laches on part of the I.O. as blood stained and plain earth taken from the spot have not been sent for chemical examination but this fact does not place the eye account witnesses as unworthy or unreliable. Non-examination of Srikrishan by the I.O. is also of no relevance because prosecution case rests on the evidence of eye account witnesses. Therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on this issue is also not material. 64. Thus on the basis of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants Dharam Singh, Banshi and Ram Singh (since died) had caused injuries by lathi, gumma and bricks on the date, time and place mentioned in the First Information Report and also in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the deceased consequently succumbed to injuries during the treatment in the morning on 10.4.1981. Injuries sustained by the deceased were also sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. 65. The present matter clearly comes within the purview of Sub-section (3) of Section 300 IPC, which reads as under : Section 300 (3) IPC - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 66. Thus, trial Court’s finding that accused-appellants are guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is in accordance with law. Filing of the charge-sheet only under Section 304 IPC is of no importance in the instant case. Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence, had framed the charge against the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the accused-appellants in the matter. 67. In view of the foregoing discussions and on close scrutiny of the entire evidence, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, as the learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law or fact in convicting the appellants-accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 68. Consequently the appeal being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants Dharam Singh and Banshi is affirmed. 68. Consequently the appeal being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants Dharam Singh and Banshi is affirmed. Since both the accused-appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. The trial Court concerned is directed to get the accused-appellants arrested and sent them to jail to serve out the sentences awarded to them. 69. The record of the trial Court alongwith copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned and Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for immediate compliance. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court. ———————