JUDGMENT (Delivered by Justice Om Prakash-VII) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Uma Shankar against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1986 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1985 State Vs. Uma Shankar, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Bhognipur, district Kanpur Dehat whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. The prosecution story in a nut shell is as follows : On 17.3.1986 a written report scribed by one Taresh Kumar and signed by informant Jokhey Lal was lodged at the Police Station concerned mentioning therein that deceased Prem Shankar's wife's sister had married the brother of the accused Uma Shankar namely Vijay Shankar. Deceased Prem Shankar and accused Uma Shankar both were cousins. Vijai Shankar at that time used to live in Delhi for earning his livelihood. On 16.3.1986 the deceased had come at Pukhraya. The accused, Uma Shankar, who is the nephew of the informant, then asked the deceased as to whether or not he had sent a letter to his brother Vijai Shankar regarding sale of the house, and it was also alleged by the accused that in fact the house has not been sold. On this issue they used abusive language against each other. On 17.3.1986 deceased Prem Shankar was sitting on the chabutara (a platform in front of the house) of Girdhari in the same mohalla. At about 2.30 P.M. the accused Uma Shankar keeping with him a Gupti (a concealed pointed weapon said to have been used in commission of the offence) came out from his house and started abusing the deceased and questioned him "why you have sent a false letter to his brother" and cuddled the accused. Seeing this the informant, Ganga Ram son of Bhadai and Satyanarain son of Chottey Lal objected where after the accused Uma Shankar caused injury with the use of Gupti in the left side of the chest which injuries traveled upto the back side of the chest also. Deceased fell down and died on the spot. Accused Uma Shankar tried to flee away but Mohan Lal and Mukesh also reached there. All the persons stated to be present there apprehended the accused along with the Gupti on the spot and made him sit near the dead body. Deceased fell down and died on the spot. Accused Uma Shankar tried to flee away but Mohan Lal and Mukesh also reached there. All the persons stated to be present there apprehended the accused along with the Gupti on the spot and made him sit near the dead body. The first information report was lodged and a request was made to take necessary action. The written report Ext. Ka-3 is on record. On the basis of the written information, F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station concerned on 17.3.1986 at 5.15 P.M. against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC which is Ext. Ka-15 on the record. The information was also entered in the G.D. as report no. 27 on the same day . Carbon copy of the same was prepared that is Ext. Ka-16. Police reached on the spot and took the accused and the Gupti in custody and prepared a recovery memo before the witnesses which is Ext. Ka-2 on record. Police also took the blood stained T shirt before the witnesses from the body of the deceased and kept it in a sealed cover. The recovery memo of the same is Ext. Ka-10. Police also took plain and blood stained earth and prepared memo which is Ext. Ka-11. The police party also prepared an inquest report on the same day which is Ext. Ka-4 on record and the dead body was kept in a sealed cover. Photo lash is Ext. Ka-5. Letter to R.I. is Ext. Ka- 6, 7 and 9. Post mortem report prepared after performance of the post mortem on 18.3.1986 at 2.30 P.M. at the morturary, is Ext. Ka-1. Police during investigation also prepared the site plan Ex. Kat.-13. After recording the statement of witnesses and completing the formalities charge sheet was filed against the accused Ext. Ka.-14. The post mortem report details are as follows : Dead body of the deceased was brought by Constable 368 Ram Narain and village chaukidar Sarman who had also identified the body of the deceased. Doctor who conducted the post mortem has mentioned that the deceased was aged about 45 years. The time of death was about one day old and the deceased was of an average built. The eyes were closed. Rigor mortis was passing from upper limit and was present in the lower limit. Doctor who conducted the post mortem has mentioned that the deceased was aged about 45 years. The time of death was about one day old and the deceased was of an average built. The eyes were closed. Rigor mortis was passing from upper limit and was present in the lower limit. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination : "1. Punctured wound on left side front of chest, 1 cm. X ½ cm. X chest cavity deep .5 cm below left nipple and 11 cm. lateral to mid line. 2. Punctured wound 1 cm. X ½ cm. Chest cavity deep on left side back 6 cm below angle of left axila (sick) and 13 cm. lateral to mid line back." Fifth rib found fractured. Muscles of the chest under the injury no. 1 and inter-castle muscles was found lacerated. Both lungs, pleura on left side were found ruptured. Pericardium and heart were also ruptured. Both the chambers were empty. Weight of the heart was found 200 gms. Semi digested food was found present in the stomach. Small intestine was half full. Lever was of 1 kg weight and gall bladder was half full. Spleen was of 120 gms. and kidney was 200 gms. As per the post mortem report cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased. Clothes and article found on the body of the deceased at the time of post mortem were also sent to the S.S.P. concerned by the Doctor. Clothes, articles and other material taken during investigation by the Investigating Officer have been proved during evidence as material evidence 1 to 6. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Trial court after hearing the parties framed charges against the accused as under : "I, D. K. Agarwal, Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, hereby charge you Uma Shankar Pandey, accused, as follows : That you on 17th day of March, 1986, at about 2.30 p.m. in front of the house of Girdhari Lal in village Atwa, P. S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Prem Shankar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. And within the cognizance of this Court. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge." Accused denied the charge. Therefore, in order to prove the case the prosecution has examined the following witnesses : P.W.-1 Ganga Ram has stated in the examination in chief that he knows Uma Shankar and Prem Shankar. Both belonged to the same caste and family. Accused and the deceased are cousin brother. This witness too belonged to the cobbler caste. On the day of incident at about 2.30 P.M. the deceased was sitting in front of the house of Girdhari on the chabutara. House of this witness and that of Girdhari are situated in front of each other. There is a lane/path in between the two houses. This witness was also repairing the shoes in front of his house. Accused Uma Shankar armed with the Gupti reached near the deceased and told him that the deceased used to send false letters to his brother. Saying this the accused inflicted a blow of Gupti on the body of the deceased which caused him injuries penetrating on the left side of the chest. Deceased after wailing with pain died on the spot. The incident had happened before this witness. Satya Narain and Jokhey Lal were also present, who were stated to have seen the occurrence. Satya Narain is nephew of Girdhari and lived in Satya Narain's house. When this witness raised an alarm, other witnesses Mohan Lal and Mahesh also came there and apprehended the accused on the spot along with the weapon used in the commission of the offence. As per this witness the written report was scribed by Taresh on the dictation of Jokhey Lal. Therefter this witness and village Chaukidar had gone to report the case at the police station concerned. P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya has stated that on 18.3.1986 he was posted at the hospital concerned and had performed the post mortem of the dead body of Prem Shankar who was aged about 35 years and had been brought by Constable Ram Narain and village Chaukidar Sarman, who have also identified the dead body of the deceased. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased by this witness : (1)Punctured wound left side in front of the chest .5 cm below the left nipple and 11 cm. lateral side of the mid line. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased by this witness : (1)Punctured wound left side in front of the chest .5 cm below the left nipple and 11 cm. lateral side of the mid line. Size of the injury was 1-1/2 cm x chest cavity deep. (2)Punctured wound 1-1/2 cm x chest cavity deep left side of the back. As per this witness five ribs were found fractured in the internal examination. Muscles of the chest was also found lacerated under injury no. 1 and 2. Pleura, heart and both lungs were also found ruptured. This witness has opined that death was caused due to excessive bleeding and shock which happened because of injury no. 1 and 2. Injury no. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. He prepared the post mortem report (Ext. Ka-1) after conducting the post mortem. He has also opined that death of the deceased was possible on 17.3.1986 at about 2.30 P.M. On being shown the weapon (Gupti) this witness has stated that injuries were found on the body of the deceased may have been caused by the use of this weapon. The articles found on the body of the deceased and the post mortem report after keeping in sealed cover had been sent back. In cross examination this witness has stated that death of the deceased had taken place one day before. P.W.-3 Mahesh Prasad has stated that he knows Uma Shankar and the deceased. Deceased was done to death on the day of incident at about 2.30 P.M. He had rushed on the spot and apprehended the accused along with the Gupti. Witness Mohan Lal was also helped in apprehending the accused. Other villagers had also come there. Ganga Ram was present there. This witness has proved the Gupti ( the weapon said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused). As per this witness he remained present on the spot till the police came there. Thereafter he handed over the accused and the said Gupti to the police. Police also prepared a memo that was signed by this witness and is Ext. Ka. 2. In cross examination this witness has stated that when accused was fleeing away he reached there. As per this witness written report was prepared at about 4 P.M. which took half an hour. Police also prepared a memo that was signed by this witness and is Ext. Ka. 2. In cross examination this witness has stated that when accused was fleeing away he reached there. As per this witness written report was prepared at about 4 P.M. which took half an hour. On being questioned by the trial court, this witness has stated that when the police came on the scene, he was not present at that time and till the police remained present on the spot he was not present there. Police has interrogated on the same night at about 12-1 a.m. The defence also cross examined him. P.W.-4 Jokhey Lal has stated that the deceased was his son and accused is also his nephew. On 17.3.1986 at about 2.30 P.M. deceased was done to death in front of the house of Girdhari where deceased was sitting. He was present in front of the house of Ganga Ram. Lalu, brother of Ganga Ram was also present there. He saw that accused Uma Shankar was causing blow with the Gupti on the body of the deceased. Deceased died. Accused Uma Shankar had been caught hold by them on the spot along with Gupti. The written report was prepared on his dictation by the scribe which was read over to him and he signed it. Thereafter the report was taken to the police station by one Ganga Ram. Accused Uma Shankar bore enmity because the deceased had sent a letter to the brother of the accused at Delhi. Accused had also made a complaint of this fact just one day before and a scuffle took place between them. This fact had been told by the deceased to this witness. He was also cross examined at length by the defence and the court. P.W.-5 S.I. Phool Singh has stated that in the month of March, 1986 he was posted as S.I. at Police Station Bhognipur. He was entrusted with the investigation of the case. After entering this fact in the G.D. he reached on the spot and prepared the inquest report and other police papers. He has prepared the papers himself. As per this witness the dead body of the deceased was kept in sealed cover and was sent for post mortem examination. He has also prepared the memo regarding shirt, simple and blood stained earth. He has prepared the papers himself. As per this witness the dead body of the deceased was kept in sealed cover and was sent for post mortem examination. He has also prepared the memo regarding shirt, simple and blood stained earth. This witness has also interrogated the witness Jokhey Lal and also prepared the fard memo of the Gupti and also taken it into custody. He has also prepared the site plan. Other witnesses have also been interrogated by this witness and after completing the investigation prepared charge sheet taking into account the fact mentioned in the post-mortem report. He has also stated that the F.I.R. had been prepared before him by Head Constable Itwari Lal. He knows the writing and signature of Sri Itwari Lal, therefore, he has proved the F.I.R. and the G.D. He has also proved the other police papers including the memo regarding Gupti . He has been cross examined at length. After completing the prosecution evidence the trial court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused has specifically stated that he has not committed any offence. The whole prosecution story is false. The witnesses have made false depositions before the court. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. Police papers and recovery memo are forged and false. There is enmity between the accused and the witness Ganga Ram that's why he has deposed against the accused. Prosecution has also been started on the basis of enmity. He has shown unawareness about the post mortem report and other police papers also. Specific statement has been made that the informant Jokhey Lal has committed the murder of his son Prem Shankar but with the help of villagers forcefully apprehended him. Accused has also examined D.W.-1 Ram Sewak, D.W.-2 Krishna Shankar in his defence. D.W.-1 Ram Sewak has stated that he knows the accused Uma Shankar. He had come on 17.3.1986 to his village to take money. At first he had come to him. Thereafter he had gone to one Krishna Shankar Dubey and was present in his village till 5 P.M. and returned back after 5 p.m. by cycle. D.W.-2 Krishna Shankar Dubey has stated that accused Uma Shankar was working at the shop of Kishan Gulati at Pukhrayana . On 17.3.1986 he had come to Pilkhani. Thereafter he had gone to one Krishna Shankar Dubey and was present in his village till 5 P.M. and returned back after 5 p.m. by cycle. D.W.-2 Krishna Shankar Dubey has stated that accused Uma Shankar was working at the shop of Kishan Gulati at Pukhrayana . On 17.3.1986 he had come to Pilkhani. At about 12 Noon he reached at the residence of this witness for taking money and was present in the village Pilkhani till 5 p.m. whereafter he returned back to his village. Trial court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order found the charge framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC proved and sentenced him, as mentioned above, hence this appeal. We have heard learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses named in the F.I.R. have not been examined by the prosecution, therefore, it shall be presumed that if they had been examined, they would have not supported the prosecution case. Witness Mahesh was not present on the spot. Reference at this stage was made of the statement made by this witness in the examination in chief and cross examination. Referring to the statements of the D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 it was also argued that accused was not present on the day of incident at the place of occurrence but was present in village Pilkhani. The incident is said to have taken place in village Atwa. Specific motive has been assigned against the accused to commit the offence but the same was not sufficient to commit the present offence. No evidence regarding execution of sale deed or letter in fact has been produced by the prosecution, therefore, the motive assigned is false and has been cooked up to plant the accused. It was also argued that recovery of Gupti is false. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. Only one blow is said to have been caused by the accused with the Gupti but the other internal parts of the body like lungs etc. have been found ruptured. Thus it was argued that the prosecution has not been able to explain the other injuries which were found on the body of the deceased. Only one blow is said to have been caused by the accused with the Gupti but the other internal parts of the body like lungs etc. have been found ruptured. Thus it was argued that the prosecution has not been able to explain the other injuries which were found on the body of the deceased. It has further been argued that with the use of the said Gupti the injuries found on the body of the deceased cannot take place and five ribs cannot be fractured. Further it was also submitted that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time and date mentioned in it. In support of this argument reference to the F.I.R., inquest report and the contents of the other police papers were given. The Investigating Officer has also not demonstrated the way from where the witnesses have reached on the spot. There are major contradictions in the statement of eye witnesses on this material point. Referring to the statement of PW-5 S.I. Phool Singh it was also argued that this witness has taken over charge of investigation on 27.3.1986 but the incident is said to have taken place on 17.3.1986. Therefore, it was argued that all the papers prepared by the police become forged and false. Relations between the deceased and his father were not cordial and generally hot talk took place and, therefore, Jokhey Lal himself has committed the murder of the deceased and falsely implicated the accused in the present matter. Prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective and has reached at a wrong conclusion. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is motive specifically assigned in the matter which has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and due to that reason the present offence has been committed. It is a broad day light murder. There are eye witnesses who have seen the occurrence. Accused along with the Gupti was arrested from the spot by the witnesses and villagers and was handed over to the police when the police reached on the spot. The houses of the witnesses (said to be eye witnesses) are situate in the same vicinity in front of the house of Girdhari. They are natural witnesses. Accused along with the Gupti was arrested from the spot by the witnesses and villagers and was handed over to the police when the police reached on the spot. The houses of the witnesses (said to be eye witnesses) are situate in the same vicinity in front of the house of Girdhari. They are natural witnesses. Minor contradictions on some points in the statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution do not affect the trustworthiness of the statements and credibility of the witnesses. Medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution case. Since Gupti, the weapon used for commission of the offence is "one balist and three angul" (one palm stretch and three fingers) in length, therefore, the injuries found on the body of the deceased may come with the use of the said Gupti. Doctor conducting the post mortem has clearly opined that injury no. 1 and 2 can be caused by the use of the said Gupti. Fifth rib has been found to be fractured, therefore, it is possible that due to impact of injuries other organs connected with the ribs might have ruptured. First information report has been lodged on the date and time mentioned in it. Prosecution has been able to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the incriminating material have been put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The latches committed by the police officer in not sending the said Gupti for forensic examination itself will not be sufficient to throw out the evidence of eye witness account. It is also argued that no prejudice is caused to the accused in making his defence. Therefore, prosecution evidence cannot be disbelieved on this score. We have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In this matter the incident is said to have taken place on two dates i.e. first on 16.3.1986 when a complaint had been made by the accused to the deceased and some altercation took place between them. Second and main incident is said to have taken place on 17.3.1986 at 2.30 P.M. in front of the house of Girdhari Lal where the deceased was sitting and accused came there and stabbed the deceased with a Gupti causing injuries due to which the deceased died on the spot. Second and main incident is said to have taken place on 17.3.1986 at 2.30 P.M. in front of the house of Girdhari Lal where the deceased was sitting and accused came there and stabbed the deceased with a Gupti causing injuries due to which the deceased died on the spot. F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the deceased but he had not gone to the Police Station. He only dictated the written report in the village to one Taresh Kumar which had been brought to the police station by one Ganga Ram. Thereafter this report was lodged. It is also the prosecution case that after receiving the information police reached on the spot and took the accused and the weapon used in the offence into custody and prepared the police papers including the inquest report etc. As has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties it is to be seen : 1. Whether F.I.R. has been lodged at the time and date mentioned in it. 2. Whether the motive assigned in the matter is sufficient to commit the present offence. 3. Whether the said eye witnesses were present on the spot at the time of incident. 4. Whether medical evidence supports the prosecution case. 5. Whether the plea taken by the accused that he was not arrested on the spot and was present in village Pilkhani is believable. 6. Whether there are latches or laxity on the part of the police in the investigation and prejudice has been caused to the accused. Besides the above other points like contradictions, omissions shall also be considered at the appropriate place. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to note the legal propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, JT 2013 (12) SC 117, which is as under (paragraphs 7 to 18 of the said judgment): "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. 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 eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant'." 7.1Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' 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 & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; Pudhu Raja & Anr. 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. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; Pudhu Raja & Anr. 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. 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 & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308 ). 12. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. 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. 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. 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 & Ors. 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. 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. 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. & Anr. v. Bhagwanthuva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., 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 & Ors. 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." In Chuhar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 879 it was held that "what is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies. 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.........." Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chacko alias Aniyan Kunju and others Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269 . 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.........." Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chacko alias Aniyan Kunju and others Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269 . In the light of the law laid down in above mentioned cases, we are proceeding to take up first of all the existence of the first information report on the date and time mentioned in it. In the present matter first information report is lodged on the day of incident itself at 5.15 P.M. The report was written by one Taresh Kumar on the dictation of the Jokhey Lal, the father of the deceased, at the place of occurrence. Thereafter P.W-1 Ganga Ram along with the chaukidar had gone to the police station concerned to lodge the first information report taking with him the written report, mentioned above. Offence is said to have been committed at 2.30 P.M. on the same day. It has also come in the statement of the P.W-1 that he took near about an hour in reaching the police station. Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka 15 discloses the distance between the place of occurrence and police station about 6 kms. P.W. 3 Mahesh has stated that written report was prepared at 4 P.M. and it took half an hour in preparing the report. Police reached on the spot at 6.30 P.M. which is clear from the inquest report itself. Submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time mentioned in it is not acceptable because the police papers prepared by the Investigating Officer on the spot finds mention of the crime number and sections. On reaching the spot police has taken into custody the accused and the said weapon of assault. Trial court has observed that the first information report was lodged at the time mentioned in the chik. There is no delay in lodging of the first information report. On reaching the spot police has taken into custody the accused and the said weapon of assault. Trial court has observed that the first information report was lodged at the time mentioned in the chik. There is no delay in lodging of the first information report. If the observation recorded by the trial court and the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are taken into consideration in consonance with the fact and evidence of the present case, the time taken in preparing the written report and going to the police station, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned, the existence of F.I.R. at the time mentioned in it is a probable one. Statement of P.W.-3 Mahesh is that the F.I.R. was prepared at 4 P.M., that took half an hour is natural and believable. If there is any contradictory statement regarding presence of this witness on the spot at the time of reaching of the police, then on that basis, first information report lodged in this matter cannot be said to be delayed or not in existence at the time and date mentioned in it. P.W.-1 Ganga Ram has also supported this fact. There is no major variation, inconsistency or contradiction in the prosecution evidence on this point. Since there is no delay in lodging of the first information report, therefore, there was no occasion to explain the delay. First information report has been lodged promptly within two hours and forty five minutes of the occurrence. If P.W.-1 Ganga Ram had proceeded for lodging the first information report after 4 P.M. then looking to the distance it is possible that at least an hour time would have been consumed by him in covering the distance to the Police Station by foot. Thus point no. 1 is answered as above. So far the arrest of the accused on the spot is concerned, the accused himself in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has admitted that he had been apprehended with the help of villagers by Jokhey Lal, father of the deceased, meaning thereby he was present on the spot at the time of the incident. Testimony of the witnesses examined as defence witness regarding the plea of alibi of the accused is not believable. P.C. has admitted that he had been apprehended with the help of villagers by Jokhey Lal, father of the deceased, meaning thereby he was present on the spot at the time of the incident. Testimony of the witnesses examined as defence witness regarding the plea of alibi of the accused is not believable. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses cited in the first information report have not been examined. Statement of Mahesh Chand, P.W.-3 regarding his presence at the time of reaching of the police on the spot is also contradictory and inconsistent. Therefore, prosecution case regarding arrest of the accused on the spot at the time of occurrence is not believable. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the house of the P.W.-1 Ganga Ram where he was sitting and was repairing shoes is just by the side of the road connecting the place of occurrence and the house of the witnesses. Offence is said to have been committed in day light, therefore, presence of P.W.-1 Ganga Ram is not improbable or unnatural at that place. This witness has clearly stated that when he raised an alarm other witnesses i.e. Mohan Lal and Mahesh Chand also reached there and apprehended the accused when he was trying to escape from the scene of occurrence. As per P.W.-1 Ganga Ram, the incident had been witnessed not only by him but by Jokhey Lal, Sat Narain and other persons. Mahesh Chand has reached just after the incident. Appellant's submission that Mahesh Chand is not an eye witness may be true, but he reached the spot just after the incident and has apprehended the accused with the help of other persons along with the weapon used in the commission of the offence. Therefore, on the basis of averment made by the accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and also on the basis of close scrutiny of the statement of P.W.-1 Ganga Ram; P.W.-3 Mahesh Chand; P.W.-4 Jokhey Lal and also on the basis of statement of P.W.-5 Phool Singh, Investigating Officer, D.W.-1 Ram Sewak, D.W.-2 Krishna Shankar, it is established that accused had been arrested on the spot by the witnesses. Plea of alibi is not believable. Finding of the trial court in this regard is therefore not liable to be interfered. Thus question no. 5 is answered as above. Plea of alibi is not believable. Finding of the trial court in this regard is therefore not liable to be interfered. Thus question no. 5 is answered as above. So far as the presence of the witnesses on the spot is concerned, on a perusal of the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the incident has taken place in front of the house of Girdhari Lal. The said "Chabutara" also belonged to Girdhari Lal where the deceased was sitting at the time of incident. Accused Uma Shankar armed with a Gupti had come there and some scuffle took place between the deceased and the accused. This incident had been witnessed by P.W.-1 Ganga Ram. Jokhey Lal had also reached there during the scuffle. There is some variation in the statement about the duration of the commission of the offence. According to P.W.1 Ganga Ram the whole act took two minutes but according to Jokhey Lal it took 5-10 minutes to commit the offence. Looking to the manner of committing the offence, it is possible that about five minutes time would have been taken in committing the offence. Initially a scuffle had taken place and the witness has resisted the accused meaning thereby some time was taken in the scuffle. Therefore, on the basis of variation in duration described by the witnesses in the statement in committing the offence by the accused, these witnesses cannot be placed in the category of untrustworthy witness. Presence of these two witnesses at the places shown in the site plan is probable and natural one. Non examination of Satya Narain and Mohan Lal will also not affect the credibility of the statement of these two witnesses, who were present on the spot at the time of incident and had seen the occurrence. It is settled legal proposition of law that while assessing the evidence in criminal cases number of witnesses have no importance rather the nature and quality of evidence has to be looked in by the court to reach on a correct conclusion, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chuhar Singh (Supra). Thus by non production of Mohan Lal and Satya Narain the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved and testimony of the P.W.-1 Ganga Ram and P.W.-3 Jokhey Lal also cannot be thrown out. Thus point no. 2 answered as above. Thus by non production of Mohan Lal and Satya Narain the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved and testimony of the P.W.-1 Ganga Ram and P.W.-3 Jokhey Lal also cannot be thrown out. Thus point no. 2 answered as above. In the present matter prosecution has specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused bore enmity with the deceased on the ground that deceased had sent a letter to the brother of the accused namely Vijay Shankar regarding sale of the property. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused had made a complain on 16.3.1986 regarding this matter and some altercation took place between them. Defence case regarding enmity is that P.W.-1 Ganga Ram bore enmity with the accused as litigation between them is pending and it is also plea of the accused that Jokhey Lal, P.W.-4, father of the deceased did not have cordial relation with his deceased son. Usually hot talk took place between Jokhey Lal and the deceased and only because of this reason Jokhely Lal has committed murder of the deceased and falsely implicated the accused appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that where there is eye witness account the motive looses its importance. Motive may be the reason to commit the offence but at the same time motive may also be a reason to falsely implicate the accused. Motive for committing the offence although is of futile nature but as per prosecution this was the reason due to which the present offence was committed by the accused. It may be mentioned here that some time offences are committed on the basis of futile motive. Therefore, motive assigned by the prosecution merely on the basis that it was futile in nature, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved specially when one day before for that reason an altercation had taken place between the accused and deceased. The reason for falsification taken by the accused is not supported by any evidence. Merely the plea, until and unless same is supported by any believable evidence, cannot take place the piece of evidence. Thus we are of the view that although motive assigned by the prosecution is of futile nature but was sufficient to commit the present offence. Thus point no. 2 is answered as above. Now we proceed to discuss the medical evidence. Thus we are of the view that although motive assigned by the prosecution is of futile nature but was sufficient to commit the present offence. Thus point no. 2 is answered as above. Now we proceed to discuss the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that only one Gupti blow is said to have been caused by the accused and the post mortem discloses only one entry wound and on back side exit wound. Therefore, other injuries found in heart, pleura and lungs cannot be the result of that injury, therefore, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. To ascertain this fact, we have gone through the record like post mortem report and the statement of P.W.-2 and also the findings arrived at by the trial court. It is clear that only one blow has been caused with the use of said Gupti and the injury no. 1 is in the size of 1 x 1/2 cm. and injury no. 2 is also of the same size. P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya has stated before the court that five ribs were found fractured but on a perusal of the post mortem report it is evident that only the fifth rib was found fractured. Thus the statement of P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya recorded by the trial court on this point is not correct. If the nature of injury no. 1 and 2 found on the body of the deceased, the said weapon used in the occurrence, and also the manner of causing the blow is taken into consideration, then the statement of the P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya on the point that five ribs were found fractured is not correct because only the fifth rib was found fractured as is evident from the post mortem report itself. Opinion expressed by an expert witness as per settled legal position is merely an opinion. The court has to form an opinion on the basis of scrutiny of entire facts and circumstances of the case. It may also be mentioned here that on this point the defence has not put any question to the P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya that the fifth rib was found fractured or all five ribs were found fractured. The court has to form an opinion on the basis of scrutiny of entire facts and circumstances of the case. It may also be mentioned here that on this point the defence has not put any question to the P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya that the fifth rib was found fractured or all five ribs were found fractured. The trial court has also not formed an opinion on this point but in our considered opinion only on this count the medical opinion cannot be said to be against the prosecution case. Injuries found on the chest and back of the body of the deceased has been supported by Dr. K. Malviya. The weapon said to have been used in the commission of crime was also shown to P.W.-2 Dr. K. Malviya and he has clearly stated that injury no. 1 and 2 may have been caused by the use of this weapon. It may also be correct to say that injuries found on the pleura, heart and lungs may be the result of the injury no. 1 as the length of the said Gupti is of "One Balist and three ungal" (almost one feet). It is possible that when the injuries were caused by a penetrating weapon, the muscles and other organs had also been affected with the impact of blow of the Gupti . It has been clearly proved by this witness that intra castel muscle was also ruptured. Lungs, heart and pleura which are on the left side of the body may have come in contact with the impact of injury no.1 and that is why the other organs may have been ruptured. In the process of causing blow it is also possible that right lung may also have ruptured because injury no. 1 and 2 can only be caused by the culprit by using a lot of force ( excess force ) by the said Gupti and due to this reason injury no. 2 has occurred. It may also be mentioned here that a scuffle took place before causing the blow. Therefore, it is probable that deceased might have resisted the accused. He would not have been sitting or standing in an idle condition. Thus the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on this point is not acceptable. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. No cross examination has been made on this point. Therefore, it is probable that deceased might have resisted the accused. He would not have been sitting or standing in an idle condition. Thus the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on this point is not acceptable. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. No cross examination has been made on this point. Only mentioning that five ribs were found fractured in the statement of Dr. K. Malviya, the statement of P.W.-2 on other points, which supports the prosecution case, cannot be thrown out. It is also to be noted here that maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. If some part of the testimony of any witness is not true or believable but other part is truthful and believable and also supports prosecution case then that part can be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence. The above Latin maxim is applicable only in English Law. The view taken by the trial court on the point of medical evidence is not liable to be interfered and point no. 4 is answered as above. We have also noticed that the Investigating Officer has not sent the said Gupti to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination to ascertain that the blood found on the weapon was the same blood of the deceased. Investigating Officer has also not demonstrated the way of arrival of the witnesses at the place of occurrence in the site plan, but only on this point in our opinion the testimony of the ocular witnesses whose presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is found established, and is supported by medical evidence, cannot be disbelieved until and unless appellant accused is able to establish that due to this fact his right of defence has been prejudiced. The appellant had opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The appellant had opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The said Gupti had been recovered from the possession of the accused on the spot, Doctor has clearly opined that the injury found on the body of the deceased was the result of the blow caused by the said Gupti, no cross examination has been made by the defence on this point, and thus a clerical mistake in the statement of P.W.-5 S.I. Phool Singh on the part of taking over the investigation on 27.3.1986, which is not materially affecting the prosecution case, we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the accused on this score and the prosecution case cannot be doubted. So far as contradiction in the statement of witnesses on the point of place from where they have seen the occurrence and also on the point of time (duration) taken in committing the offence are concerned, these are minor discrepancies and some variations are bound to come in the statement of the witnesses as they have been examined on different dates. Relationship of the witness is also of no value in this matter because place of occurrence is the place where the houses of the witnesses are situated. Incident has taken place in day hour, therefore, their presence on the spot is natural and probable. Relationship of P.W.-4 Jokhey Lal with the deceased is not a factor to affect the credibility of this witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Plea of false implication taken by the accused appellant has been found false. On a careful analysis of the statement of P.W-4 Jokhey Lal, we are of the view that this witness is a natural and probable witness and his statement cannot be thrown out or disbelieved on the basis of his relationship with the deceased. It may also be mentioned here that relationship and interestedness are two different aspects. The interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation in the matter. P.W.-3 Jokhey Lal is a related witness but not an interested witness. It may also be mentioned here that relationship and interestedness are two different aspects. The interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation in the matter. P.W.-3 Jokhey Lal is a related witness but not an interested witness. Thus on the basis of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that findings of the trial court regarding date, time and place of the occurrence and also involvement of the appellant in causing death of the deceased are based on the evidence available on record. As we have dealt herein above, the medical evidence also supports the prosecution version, therefore, we do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Thus the appeal is hereby dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.1986 is hereby confirmed. Since the accused appellant is in jail, let a copy of this judgment and order along with lower court record be sent forthwith to the court concerned to take necessary action. ——————