JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ram Manohar against the judgment and order dated 25.3.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 171 of 1982 (State v. Ram Manohar and another) under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hussainganj, district Fatehpur whereby the appellants Ram Manohar and one Mewa Lal (since died) have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 1983 filed on behalf of the co-accused Mewa Lal was abated by this Court on 23.3.2012, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant Ram Manohar is only before us. We proceed to deal with this appeal. 3. Prosecution story in nut shell is as follows : Written report dated 9.1.1982 Ex. Ka-1 was submitted by informant Dharam Pal at Police Station Hussainganj mentioning therein that on 9.1.1982 informant and his uncle Ram Prasad were returning to their house on bicycle. Ram Prasad was riding bicycle and informant was a pillion rider. At about 6 P.M when they reached near the north-east corner of the house of Jageshwar suddenly accused Ram Manohar armed with country made pistol and Mewa Lal armed with axe came there. Accused persons exhorted to kill the informant and Ram Prasad (deseased). On hearing this, informant jumped from the bicycle and raised hue and cry. Ram Prasad also tried to get down from the bicycle. Ram Manohar fired from his country made pistol. As a result of which Ram Prasad got injured thereupon accused Mewa Lal assaulted him with the help of an axe. As a result of which Ram Prasad died on the spot. On the hue and cry of the informant witnesses Ram Das, Rajan, Satya Narain came there and saw the incident. When they challenged the accused persons, they ran away. It was moon light at the time of incident. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that there was some previous enmity between deceased Ram Prasad and the accused appellant over the theft of a goat and a buffalo of Ram Prasad which was allegedly stolen by Ram Manohar. On this point altercation took place between them which gave rise to the commission of the present offence. 4. On the basis of the written report Ex. Ka-1, chick F.I.R. Ex. On this point altercation took place between them which gave rise to the commission of the present offence. 4. On the basis of the written report Ex. Ka-1, chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka-2 was registered at police station concerned on the same day at about 8.25 p.m. against the accused Ram Manohar and Mewa Lal. 5. Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Jai Karan Singh, who after recording the statement of Head Moharrir Ansar Ahmad, Dharam Pal (informant) and one Rajendra Kumar Shukla proceeded to place of occurrence. Registration of the F.I.R. was also entered in the general diary at S. No. 24, copy of which is Ex. Ka.-3 on the record. Investigating Officer on reaching the village recorded statement of Ram Das and Rajan and also other persons. Search of the accused persons was also made in the night itself. Memo Ext. Ka-5 and 6 were prepared in this regard. Due to darkness inquest report could not be prepared in the night. In the morning of 10.1.1982 inquest report was prepared as Ex. Ka-7 and thereafter the dead body was sealed. He also prepared sample seal, challan nash, letter for post-mortem examination and a letter to R.I. Dead body was dispatched through Constable Ram Kumar and Ram Das to the mortuary. Investigating Officer had also taken the clothes from the body of the deceased at the time of preparing the inquest report. A memo in this regard was prepared and marked as Ex.Ka-13. Site plan (Ex. Ka-14) was prepared. During inspection bicycle of the deceased was found on the spot and the same was entrusted in the custody of Dharampal and a supurdgi memo (Ex. Ka-15) was prepared. The Investigating Officer took blood stained and plain earth from the spot and the same was kept in separate container and memo (Ex. Ka.-16) was prepared. Empty cartridge found on the spot was also taken into custody and a memo in this regard was prepared. After interrogating the witnesses and fulfilling the formalities and also ensuring the arrest of the accused person Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter and the case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial after fulfilling all the formalities as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 7. After interrogating the witnesses and fulfilling the formalities and also ensuring the arrest of the accused person Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter and the case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial after fulfilling all the formalities as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 7. Trial Court after hearing the parties framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused appellant and the co-accused. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed their trial. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.-1, informant, Dharam Pal, who claimed himself to be an eye-witness. P.W.-2 Ram Das who also claimed himself to be an eye-witness; P.W.-3 Ansar Ahmad, Sub Inspector who has prepared the chick (Ex. Ka.-2) and G.D. (Ex. Ka.-3 and Ka.-4). P.W.-4 Rajan, who claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W.-5 is Jai Karan Singh, the Investigating Officer. 9. Besides these witnesses prosecution has also tendered in evidence the post-mortem report, formal proof of which was dispensed with by the defence and was marked as Ex. Ka.-9. Affidavit of Constable Ram Kumar who carried the dead body was also filed. The defence did not desire to cross-examine him. Affidavit was consequently marked as Ex. Ka.-20. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence learned trial Court recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. In their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused contended that they were falsely implicated in this case due to party bandi. Witnesses have deposed against them on the ground of enmity. They denied the prosecution allegations against them. Ram Manohar admitted that his property was attached but he never absconded in the case. The accused being called upon to enter upon their defence however they did not produce any oral evidence in defense. Ram Manohar filed a copy of charge-sheet Ex. Kha.-1 to show that Dharampal P.W.-1 and Rajan P.W.-4 were accused in a case occurred on 19.9.1979 wherein the report was lodged by Ram Sajiwan under Section 302 IPC. Ram Manohar accused was a prosecution witness in that case. 11. We have heard Sri S.K. Pal and Shiva Kant Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and have also gone through the entire record. 12. Ram Manohar accused was a prosecution witness in that case. 11. We have heard Sri S.K. Pal and Shiva Kant Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and have also gone through the entire record. 12. Sri Pal appearing for the appellant submitted that weapon said to be used in commission of crime was not recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The said eye-witness account are relative witnesses. There are chances of false implication in the matter as there was enmity between the parties. Motive suggested by the prosecution was not proved. Prosecution was not able to establish the place and time of occurrence. Blood stained earth and plain earth were taken from the spot but were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. 13. It was further argued that prosecution has suppressed the material witnesses, therefore, presumption would be raised against the prosecution that had they been examined they would not have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-1 Dharampal and P.W.-2 Ram Das were not eye account witnesses. No injury was caused to Dharam Pal, therefore, prosecution story appears to be improbable. Investigating Officer had reached the spot in the night itself but inquest report was not prepared in the night. Injuries found on the body of the deceased Ram Das could not be caused by the axe. 14. Persons of the locality had not reached on the spot. It also shows that the incident did not happen on the date, time, and place of occurrence, as mentioned in the F.IR. Learned counsel for the appellant referred the Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence during the course of submissions to show that injuries found on the body of deceased could not be caused with the use of axe. Presence of the witnesses on the spot is also doubtful. Taking out of the clothes of the deceased at the time of preparing the inquest report itself indicates that incident did not take place in the manner as has been alleged by the prosecution. Enmity between Ram Manohar and Ram Das was referred to establish the false implication of the appellant. 15. Taking out of the clothes of the deceased at the time of preparing the inquest report itself indicates that incident did not take place in the manner as has been alleged by the prosecution. Enmity between Ram Manohar and Ram Das was referred to establish the false implication of the appellant. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments relied upon the following cases : (1) Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, 2010 (1) SCC 108 ; (2) Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1953 SC 415 ; (3) Hallu and others v. State of M.P., AIR 1974 SC 1936 (4) Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083 . 16. Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned A.G.A. submitted that though chemical examination report is not available on record yet the blood stained earth and plain earth were taken from the place of occurrence. P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 are not the chance witnesses but they are natural and probable witness and they were present on the spot from the very beginning. Returning of informant and the deceased on the bicycle from the field at the time of occurrence is not improbable and unnatural. Deceased and P.W.-1 both were returning from the fields and when they reached at the place of occurrence the accused persons committed the present offence. There is no ground for false implication. 17. It was further argued that medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. Injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused with the help of weapons assigned to the accused person. Lacerated wound found on the body of the deceased can be caused with the use of axe. Trial Court finding is based on evidence. There was no necessity to summon the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem as the defence admitted the post-mortem report under Section 294 Cr. P.C. 18. In support of his submissions Sri Sharma relied upon the following case laws: (1) Sadik and others v. State, 1981 AWC 80 ; (2) Mano v. State of Tamilnadu, 2007 Cri LJ 2736 (3) Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and others v. State of U.P., JT 2006 (1) SC 428. 19. P.C. 18. In support of his submissions Sri Sharma relied upon the following case laws: (1) Sadik and others v. State, 1981 AWC 80 ; (2) Mano v. State of Tamilnadu, 2007 Cri LJ 2736 (3) Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and others v. State of U.P., JT 2006 (1) SC 428. 19. Before proceeding to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties we refer the findings of the trial Court : (i) Prosecution has failed to establish the motive attributed to the appellants to commit the present offence. (ii) Witnesses examined as eye account witness were present on the spot and had seen the incident. They are natural and probable witness. (iii) Witnesses are relative of the deceased but their testimony cannot be discarded on this ground alone. (iv) Prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the part played by the accused appellants. Apellant Mewa Lal (since died) was armed with kulhari, appellant Ram Manohar was armed with country made pistol. (v) Medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. Lacerated wounds found on the body of the deceased were caused by an axe. (vi) Investigating officer mistakenly has taken that accused Mewa Lal (since died) had used gandasa. (vii) Prosecution has also established the date, time and place of the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. (viii) Manner of incident stated by the eye-witness account find support from the medical evidence. (ix) Non examination of nearby independent witnesses will not place the testimony of the eye-witnesses account unbelievable. (x) Trial Court has also opined that both the accused appellant have committed the present offence in furtherance of their common intention, therefore, they were held guilty under of Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 20. First of all we take up the evidentary value of post-mortem report. 21. The defence, during trial, had made the following endorsement on Post-mortem report at the stage of prosecution evidence : “Admitted. Formal proof dispensed with. Admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C.”. 22. The deceased was done to death on 9.1.1982 in the evening hours, the post-mortem was conducted on the next day at 1:30 p.m. on the body of the deceased and a post-mortem report was prepared. 23. Formal proof dispensed with. Admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C.”. 22. The deceased was done to death on 9.1.1982 in the evening hours, the post-mortem was conducted on the next day at 1:30 p.m. on the body of the deceased and a post-mortem report was prepared. 23. 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 is not proved from the prosecution evidence; (b) Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was not examined to prove the post-mortem report; (c) only from dispensing the formal proof of the execution of this document, it cannot be held that appellants have admitted the genuineness of the contents of the documents; (d) Post-mortem report, until and unless proved by its author, cannot be read as evidence and is not a substantive piece of evidence. 24. It is not disputed in this case that the appellants have admitted the post-mortem report under Section 294 and same was exhibited as proved documents during trial. 25. 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. 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 has held that if the genuineness of any document was not disputed by the opposite party, the same shall be read as substantive evidence and can be exhibited as proved document. 26. Regarding admissibility and acceptance of the contents of 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. 27. 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. In the present matter exercise of discretionary power vested under Section 311 Cr. P.C. is not warranted because of the admission of the post-mortem report by the appellant. If the appellants wanted to cross-examine the author they ought to have applied before the Court concerned for summoning the author of the post-mortem report. There was no legal compulsion to the prosecution to examine the author because genuineness of the document was admitted by the appellants. 28. Before proceeding to discuss other points, we take up the medical evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Ram Manohar caused fire-arm injuries to the deceased and accused Mewa Lal (since died) caused axe injuries. Deceased died on the spot due to the injuries received by him in the incident in question. Appellants have admitted the post-mortem report under Section 294 Cr. P.C. It appears that due to that reason the prosecution did not examine the author of the post-mortem report. Deceased died on the spot due to the injuries received by him in the incident in question. Appellants have admitted the post-mortem report under Section 294 Cr. P.C. It appears that due to that reason the prosecution did not examine the author of the post-mortem report. A perusal of the post-mortem report (Ex. Ka. -19) shows that following anti mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased : 1. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep margins irregular just in front of pinna of left ear. 2. Lacerated wound 5" x 2" x bone deep margins irregular on the left side of upper part of neck extending from left pinna of ear cutting nebula of ear going back with fracture of mastoid process. 3. Incised wound 3' x ½ “ brain cavity deep margins clean cut, brain matter coming out on left occipital parietal region with fracture of occipital and left parietal bone. 4. Lacerated wound ½” x ¼” muscle deep margins irregular on the back of upper part of neck in the mid line trousely placed. 5. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" muscle deep margin irregular with mid line of posterior parietal region. 6. Lacerated wound of 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep margin irregular on the middle of lower lip. 7. Two gun shot wounds of entry right leg on the lateral surface upper half measuring 1/4" x 1/2" x muscle deep margin inverted 1/2" away from each other direction from right to left. 29. Two pellets, one of pea size and one deshaped recovered from the right leg. It was sealed in an envelope and sent to S.P. Fatehpur through proper channel for necessary action. 30. Dr. Swatantra Singh who conducted the post-mortem has not mentioned/expressed any specific opinion in the post-mortem report on the point of weapon used for causing such injuries except the cause of death. Deceased was aged about 40 years and of average built body. Rigor mortis was present in the limbs. Small intestine was full of digestive food. Large intestine was full of faecal matter. Stomach contains 4 ounce liquid. As per post-mortem report deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti mortem injuries. 31. Sri Pal, learned counsel for the appellant referring injury No. 6 argued that no injury could be caused with the help of axe measuring 8-1/2" x ¼” x muscle deep. Stomach contains 4 ounce liquid. As per post-mortem report deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti mortem injuries. 31. Sri Pal, learned counsel for the appellant referring injury No. 6 argued that no injury could be caused with the help of axe measuring 8-1/2" x ¼” x muscle deep. Similarly injury No. 2 is also of 5" x 2" x bone deep which could also not be caused with the help of axe, therefore, in the present matter there is conflict between medical evidence and oral testimony. The prosecution case is demolished on this point as none of the accused were assigned sharp edged weapon. 32. To analyse the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have minutely perused the injury sheet mentioned in the post-mortem report and also ocular testimony. In the F.I.R. one of the accused is assigned the weapon axe. It is also the case of the prosecution that several injuries were caused by the co-accused Mewa Lal by axe. Injury No. 6 is in the shape of 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep but Sri Pal, learned counsel for the appellant referring the word mentioned before the measurement of the injury argued that injury No. 6 is in the shape of 8-1/2" x 1-1/4" x muscle deep. Trial Court while forming opinion on the medical evidence observed that in the injury No. 6 before the measurement 1/2" x 1/4" word “of” is mentioned but not “8”. To ascertain this fact, we have also gone through the description of the nature of other injuries in the post-mortem report. While describing the injury No. 2 the word “of” has been written. The word “of” mentioned therein (injury No. 2) resembles to word “of” which has been mentioned while describing the nature of injury No. 6. The style of writing “of” is similar and they resemble each other and it cannot be inferred that figure “8” has been mentioned and not “of”. Therefore, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and the injury No. 6 is a lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 33. Now the question is whether these injuries could be caused by axe. As per P.W.-5 I.O. the eye account witnesses have stated that accused Mewa Lal caused injuries by “Gandasa”. Therefore, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and the injury No. 6 is a lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 33. Now the question is whether these injuries could be caused by axe. As per P.W.-5 I.O. the eye account witnesses have stated that accused Mewa Lal caused injuries by “Gandasa”. Question was put to the P.W.-1 Dharampal, P.W.-2 Ram Das and P.W.-4 Rajan in this regard but they denied this fact. They stated that they had told the Investigating Officer that accused Mewa Lal caused injuries by axe. All the eye-witnesses account have stated this fact consistently. Trial Court has observed that Investigating Officer while misreading the shape and size of the injury No. 6 had mentioned in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that injuries were caused with the use of “Gandasa”. Discarding the statement of the Investigating Officer on this point, trial Court placed reliance on the eye-witness account and concluded that lacerated wound found on the body of the deceased could be caused by axe. 34. On analysis we are of the view that though axe is a sharp edged cutting weapon but edge of the axe would not be so sharp in comparison to gandasa or other like weapons. Lacerated wounds are muscle deep except the injury No. 2. The margins of the wounds were such which give the impression of the lacerated wound and due to that reason the author has shown the injuries as lacerated wounds. The nature of the wounds depends not only on the weapon used but also on the surface beneath while cutting. If a sheet is spread and the surface beneath is uneven then a different kind of cut would be created rather on an even surface. In the present matter there was one incised wound also. This injury was on the left occipital parietal region which is a bony part of the body. Therefore, due to bony part underneath the injuries the axe will cause clear cut wound. Other injuries said to be caused by axe are lacerated wounds because of the surface beneath the injuries. 35. Thus after close scrutiny of the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, we are of the view that injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by axe. Other injuries said to be caused by axe are lacerated wounds because of the surface beneath the injuries. 35. Thus after close scrutiny of the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, we are of the view that injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by axe. There is no infirmity or illegality on this point in the opinion of the trial Court. 36. As regards motive is concerned trial Court itself has not found established the motive alleged by the prosecution, therefore, we do not find any necessity to discuss this point. 37. As far as presence of witnesses on the spot is concerned, P.W.-1 Dharampal was the pillion rider on the cycle which was ridden by the deceased. When they reached the place of occurrence, the accused were armed with weapons. This witness on hearing the exhortation of the accused person jumped from the cycle to save himself. Offence is said to have been committed at about 6 p.m. in the vicinity of the village where this witness also resides. Deceased is also a relative of this witness. Therefore, returning of this witness to his home on the bycycle of the deceased is not improbable and unnatural conduct. Only on this ground that P.W.-1 Dharampal is the relative of the deceased it cannot be held that he is not telling truth before the Court. Trial Court view regarding the presence of this witness on the spot is based on the evidence available on record. 38. So far as presence of P.W.-2 Ram Das is concerned he is a Government employee. He has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence he was present in the village as his office hour was from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. He was posted at P.H.C. Bithora as Pharmacist and the same is not very far from the place of incident. He claimed himself to be an eye-witness. When he alongwith one Satya Narain reached the place of occurrence they saw Ram Prasad and Dharampal on the cycle. There upon the accused Ram Manohar made exhortation and opened fire on the deceased Ram Prasad. Thereafter Mewa Lal also caused several axe injuries. He claimed himself to be an eye-witness. When he alongwith one Satya Narain reached the place of occurrence they saw Ram Prasad and Dharampal on the cycle. There upon the accused Ram Manohar made exhortation and opened fire on the deceased Ram Prasad. Thereafter Mewa Lal also caused several axe injuries. P.W.-4 Rajan is also relative of the deceased but he has consistently supported the prosecution case on the point of place and time of occurrence, participation of the accused and also on the point of manner of the incident. Appellants in the cross-examination from this witness have tried to establish enmity between the accused and this witness but, in our opinion, this fact alone is not sufficient to discard the testimony of this witness disbelieving his presence on the spot. All the three witnesses are residing in the same locality and it was 6 p.m. when P.W.-4 was going to attend the nature’s call towards field. The conduct of this witness was not unnatural, therefore, trial Court’s opinion that P.W.-1 Dharampal and P.W.-2 Ram Das and P.W.-4 Rajan are eye-witness account is correct. They have seen the occurrence. Finding of the trial Court is based on the evidence available on record and also on correct appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses.It may also be mentioned here that medical evidence in the present matter is not in conflict with the ocular testimony of these witnesses. As far as the fact of being a relative of the deceased is concerned, admittedly P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 are the relative of the deceased but their testimony on this basis alone cannot be discarded. In the present matter the injury was caused by the present appellant Ram Manohar by country made pistol. One empty cartridge and the cycle was recovered from the place of occurrence. Nature of injury also fits in the circumstances of the present case. 39. The testimony of an eye-witness merely because he happens to be a relative of the deceased cannot be discarded as close relatives would be the last one to screen out the real culprit and implicate innocent person, as per the Apex Court in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 . This aspect of the matter has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 SCC 759 . This aspect of the matter has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 SCC 759 . The relevant paras are as follows: “12. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23-24). 23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 704 , where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the Court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well-settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.” Apex Court in the case of Thoti Manohar v. State of A.P., 2012 (7) SCC, has stated as follows: “39. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well-settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.” Apex Court in the case of Thoti Manohar v. State of A.P., 2012 (7) SCC, has stated as follows: “39. No evidence can ever be perfect for man is not perfect and man lives in an imperfect world. Thus, the duty of the Court is to see with the vision of prudence and acceptability of the deposition regard being had to the substratum of the prosecution story. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, wherein H.R. Khanna, J., speaking for the Court, observed thus: “23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by a yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” 40. Now it is settled legal position that merely because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that affects the credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. To appreciate the statement of relative witnesses, only requirement of law is that testimony of such witnesses will be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. 41. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that affects the credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. To appreciate the statement of relative witnesses, only requirement of law is that testimony of such witnesses will be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. 41. On close scrutiny of statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 and the post-mortem report we are also of the view that fire-arm injury was caused by the present appellant Ram Manohar in the manner stated by the eye-witnesses account. Lacerated wounds found on the body of the deceased were caused by the co-accused Mewa Lal (since died) by the axe. Thus finding recorded by the trial Court on the point of use of weapons assigned to them is also established from the prosecution evidence. 42. Investigating Officer has taken the blood stained soil and the plain soil from the place of occurrence and the same was not sent for chemical examination. The defence has not specifically challenged the place of occurrence putting any specific question to the prosecution witnesses. There is consistency regarding place of occurrence in the statement of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and P.W.-4, therefore, opinion formed by the trial Court on this point is also not interfereable. The place of occurrence was established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 43. Inquest report was also prepared at the said place of occurrence. Some mistake appears to have been done by the Investigating Officer, while he was preparing the inquest report. He has taken the clothes and shoes of the deceased in custody. Thus the conduct of the Investigating Officer is not in accordance with law or procedure applicable for this purpose but on this ground alone the ocular testimony of the P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 regarding place of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. P.W.-5, the Investigating Officer has also taken incriminating articles from the place of occurrence. Thus we are of the view that prosecution was able to establish the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence adduced by it. 44. Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial. P.W.-5, the Investigating Officer has also taken incriminating articles from the place of occurrence. Thus we are of the view that prosecution was able to establish the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence adduced by it. 44. Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial. If the Court is convinced that the evidence of eye-witnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the Investigating Officer in the case is suspicious, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abu Thakir and others v. State, AIR 2010 SC 2119 ; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 and Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, through Secretary Home, AIR 2008 SC 441 . 45. Incident is said to have taken place at 6 p.m. It was the month of January. In the F.I.R. it has come that it was moon light. Accused persons and the witnesses both belonged to the same village and were known to each other. Witnesses have seen the occurrence from the close distance, therefore, they may have no problem in recognizing the accused appellant. It would also be clear that deceased and the P.W.-1 both were present in front of the house of the Jageshwar when the incident took place. At the time of the incident P.W.-1 who was accompanying the deceased had not made efforts to save him but this fact is not sufficient to disbelieve or discard the testimony of this witness. 46. It is also to be mentioned here that to prove any fact the quantity of the witnesses is not material rather the quality of the evidence. 47. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Food Inspector v. G. Satya Narayana, AIR 2004 SC 1236 , has held that it is not the number of witnesses but it is the quality of evidence which is required to be taken note of by the Courts for ascertaining the truth of the allegations made against the accused. Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact. The witnesses of fact produced on behalf of the prosecution, are trustworthy and well reliable and merely because no independent witness was examined, the evidence of witnesses of fact cannot be discarded. 48. Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact. The witnesses of fact produced on behalf of the prosecution, are trustworthy and well reliable and merely because no independent witness was examined, the evidence of witnesses of fact cannot be discarded. 48. The Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Sharma (Supra) has held that if the major part of the evidence was disbelieved then it is extremely difficult to accept the rest evidence of that witness. It has also been held that in its appellate jurisdiction, all the facts were open to the High Court and, therefore, the High Court was expected to go deep into the evidence and, more particularly, the record as also the proved documents. 49. The Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (Supra) has held that in a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it must prove the whole of that case. 50. In the case of Hallu and others (Supra) the Apex Court held that normally when a witness says that axe or spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon. 51. So far as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, after a careful perusal of the same, we are of the firm view that none of these judgments are helpful to the appellants because the facts of all these cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are entirely different from the facts of the present case. Every criminal case stands on a different footing and, therefore, the verdict of a criminal case cannot be blindly followed as a precedent in another case without looking into the facts peculiar to each case. It is to be mentioned also that we have gone through the entire record carefully and submissions raised by the appellant which have been dealt with by us in the earlier part of the judgment. Genuineness of the post-mortem report has been admitted by the appellant. Injuries found on the body of deceased could be caused with the weapon assigned to the accused. 52. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the contradictions occurred in the statement of eye account witnesses on the point of number of blows, manner and assignment of place to the appellants in causing injuries are bound to occur in their statements as they were examined after a gap of 1 years. Further, every person, who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, some become speechless and some stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start walling, some start shouting for help. Those others who run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible are not necessary incredible yet others rush to the rescue of the victim even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Hence, we are of the opinion that the finding of the trial Court regarding presence of the eye account witnesses on the spot is based on the evidence available on record. There is no illegality and infirmity in the said finding and the same does not requires interference. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard cannot be accepted. Conduct of the eye account witness cannot be said to be unnatural 53. Criminal cases shown in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses are also not of such nature that the prosecution witnesses would have falsely implicated the accused appellant in the present matter. 54. Thus on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that trial Court has rightly held the accused appellant Ram Manohar guilty for committing the murder of Ram Prasad with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Injury caused by the appellant was found on the body of the deceased. 54. Thus on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that trial Court has rightly held the accused appellant Ram Manohar guilty for committing the murder of Ram Prasad with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Injury caused by the appellant was found on the body of the deceased. The appellant opened fire on the deceased and co-accused Mewa Lal (since died) had caused sufficient axe injuries which caused the death of the deceased. Attending circumstances clearly shows that the offence took place at the place of occurrence and both the accused have committed the offence in furtherance of common intention of all the accused. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the guilt of the appellant Ram Manohar is also not liable to be interfered. 55. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is well discussed. Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is liable to be upheld and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 56. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.1983 is hereby confirmed. 57. The appellant Ram Manohar is on bail. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned immediately to serve out the remaining sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. In case he fails to surrender, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take coercive action against them in this regard. 58. Copy of this judgment alongwith lower Court record be sent immediately to the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for compliance. ———————