JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Sole surviving appellant Bachchu has preferred this criminal appeal against the order dated 28.2.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 221 of 1980 (State v. Bachchu and another) arising out of Crime No. 55 of 1980, P.S. Khanna, District Hamirpur whereby Bachchu and deceased appellants Kariya and Basira have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively and a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. 2. The appeal filed on behalf of appellant No. 2 Kariya and appellant No. 3 Basira stands abated on account of their death. 3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 17.4.1980 informant Hayat Ahmad (P.W. 1), his deceased brother Safat, his sister Sabbo (injured) and his wife Smt. Jabbo (injured) (P.W. 2) were working in the barn (Khalihan). His brother-in-law, Usman (sister’s husband) (P.W. 3) was also present in his own barn which was located adjacent to the barn of informant Hayat Ahmad. The barn (Khalihan) of accused persons namely, Bachchu and Kariya sons of Subhan is also adjacent to the barn of Usman and located towards its south. 4. Accused appellants Bachchu, Kariya and Basira entered into the barn of Usman probably for approaching their own barn located towards south. Accused Bachchu was armed with Farsa (axe), Kariya was armed with Barchi (spear) and Basira was armed with lathi. Usman (P.W. 3) asked them to withdraw. They started abusing Usman, brother-in-law of informant. Deceased Safat objected to such abuses and asked them not to commit encroachment in future. 5. All three accused got infuriated. They jumped towards the barn of Safat and assaulted him. Deceased Safat was given Lathi, Farsa (axe) and Barchi (spear) blows. Smt. Sabbo and Smt. Jabbo were also beaten with lathies when tried to rescue Safat Ahmad. P.W. 1, Hayat Ahmad saved himself by running towards the barn of Usman. They raised alarm, whereupon Gayasuddin, Ram Singh and Chunni etc. arrived on the spot and witnessed the incident. Injured Safat Ahmad sustained Barchi (spear) blows in his stomach and also sustained various injuries on the other part of the body. On arrival of the witnesses, accused persons ran away from the spot. The injured persons were taken by bullock cart to home. arrived on the spot and witnessed the incident. Injured Safat Ahmad sustained Barchi (spear) blows in his stomach and also sustained various injuries on the other part of the body. On arrival of the witnesses, accused persons ran away from the spot. The injured persons were taken by bullock cart to home. The informant Hayat Ahmad dictated F.I.R. to one Gulam Mohammad. The injured were then taken to police station Khanna where report was lodged (Ex. Ka 1). The condition of injured Safat Ahmad was deteriorating, so he was sent to district head quarter Hamirpur for treatment from where he was referred to Kanpur. Informant Hayat Ahmad took injured Safat in a bus to Kanpur where he was operated on the second day but succumbed to injuries, on third day. Autopsy was conducted. The criminal case earlier registered under Section 307 I.P.C. was converted into 304 I.P.C. The entire dispute was investigated and thereafter a charge-sheet under Sections 304, 323 and 324 I.P.C. was submitted against accused persons Bachchu, Kariya and Basira. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge vide order dated 5.8.1980. The trial Judge framed charges against the appellants under Sections 302/34, 323/34 I.P.C. The accused persons denied all charges and claimed to be tried. During course of trial, testimony of as many as 8 witnesses was recorded by prosecution, namely, P.W. 1 Hayat Ahmad, P.W. 2 Smt. Jabbo (injured), wife of informant Hayat Ahmad, P.W. 3 Usman (eye-witness), P.W. 4 Kamta Prasad (Head Constable), P.W. 5 Ram Bir Singh (constable), P.W. 6 Dr. R.S. Verma, P.W. 7 Sarman Singh (Sub Inspector) and P.W. 8 Dr. R.S. Kushwaha. 6. After recording statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they were provided opportunity to adduce evidence in defence but accused persons did not enter into any defence either oral and documentary. Trial Judge found that there is sufficient evidence to establish the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 323/34 I.P.C., therefore, accused persons Bachchu, Kariya and Basira were convicted under aforesaid sections and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentence of three months under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation vide judgment and order dated 28.2.1983. This judgment is under challenge before this Court. 7. 500/- with default stipulation vide judgment and order dated 28.2.1983. This judgment is under challenge before this Court. 7. As stated earlier appellant No. 2 Kariya and appellant No. 3 Basira have died, therefore, this Court is only concerned with the appeal of appellant No. 1 Bachchu. Appeal of appellants Kariya and Basira stands abated. 8. Heard Sri Mohd. Shabbir Ahmad, learned counsel for appellant No. 1 and Sri Saiyed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. 9. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that there was no motive for appellant to attack the deceased Safat and that; incident occurred during the night and no one was present inside the barn (Khalihan) during night. After recovery of corpse of Safat Ahmad appellants have been implicated on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel for appellant has also submitted that medical evidence is not consistent with the oral evidence. The testimony rendered by witnesses is full of contradictions creating doubt about their presence on the spot. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that all witnesses are related to each other and not a single independent witness has been produced despite their availability. It has also been submitted that the story discloses that both parties were busy in their post harvesting agricultural work in their respective barns (Khalihan) and there was no occasion for accused persons to assault deceased Safat and two women. 10. On the contrary, learned A.G.A. has submitted that testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of inter-se relationship. The evidence of witnesses has to be weighed on the touch stone of credibility. If testimony of witness is trustworthy, it cannot be rejected merely on the ground of previous enmity with the accused persons or on account of their relationship with the deceased. It has also been submitted that deceased Safat Ahmad sustained several injuries on his persons which have been shown in the testimony of P.W. 8 Dr. R.S. Kushwaha. Dr. Kushwaha examined deceased Safat before his death at Hamirpur and found following injuries on his persons: (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm. bone deep on the vertex 13 cm. above the occipital prominence. (2) Incised wound 9 cm.x .5 cm.x skin deep on the outer side of upper arm 15 cm. above the right elbow. R.S. Kushwaha. Dr. Kushwaha examined deceased Safat before his death at Hamirpur and found following injuries on his persons: (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm. bone deep on the vertex 13 cm. above the occipital prominence. (2) Incised wound 9 cm.x .5 cm.x skin deep on the outer side of upper arm 15 cm. above the right elbow. (3) Incised wound 5 cm.x 1 cm.x skin deep on the outer side of right upper arm closed to injury No. 2. (4) Penetrating injury 1 cm x.5 cmx4 cm. in right hypocondrium death and nature may be decided in operation theater under observation. (5) Contusion 8 cm x 5 cm. on the left upper chest in between Ist and second inter castal space from external border towards side under observation. (6) Contusion 5 cm. x 1 ½ cm. on the right supera scapular region from upper angle of scapula to down-wards. (7) Contusion 11 cm x 2 cm on the left back from left shoulder to downwards. (8) Abrasion 14 cm. x .1 cm on the front of chest from 5th right casto condral junction to downwards froward in a right hypoconduran. 11. Dr. R.C. Kushwaha also found following injuries on the person of Smt. Jabbo, wife of Hayat another injured: (i) contusion 7 cm.x 2 cm. on the out side left thigh 3 cm. below Iliac (ii) Contusion 9 cm. x 2 cm. on the out side of left thigh 9 cm. below Illiac Crez 6 cm. below injury No. 1. 12. The same Dr. R.C. Kushwaha has also examined another injured Smt. Sabbo and prepared his report as follows : (1) Contusion 7 cm. x 5 cm. x 5 cm. on the other side of left forearm 9 cm. below left elbow. 13. We have carefully scanned all available evidence on record. A bare perusal of this evidence would reveal that the barn of accused persons, deceased Safat and his sister’s husband Usman are adjacent to each other. Site plan (Ex. Ka-10) also establishes this fact. The entry in the barn (Khalihan) of accused persons is from the side of east while the same entry in the barn of deceased Safat and his brother-in-law are from the west side. Apparently, the accused persons entered the barn of Usman using shortcut to enter their own barn located towards south. Site plan (Ex. Ka-10) also establishes this fact. The entry in the barn (Khalihan) of accused persons is from the side of east while the same entry in the barn of deceased Safat and his brother-in-law are from the west side. Apparently, the accused persons entered the barn of Usman using shortcut to enter their own barn located towards south. The evidence further reveals that both parties were on inimical terms. Subhan the father of accused Bachchu was convicted for the murder of Imammuddin, uncle of informant. The evidence would further reveal that bad blood continued to the next generation and there were several instances of litigation between the members of both families on various occasions. There is absolutely no doubt that both families were on inimical terms. In the background of this previous enmity, the entry of accused persons into the barn of Usman, brother-in-law of deceased Safat without his permission, was like red-flag to the other party. Usman obviously asked them not to enter in his barn. Accused persons started hurling abuses at Usman. Deceased Safat, brother-in-law of Usman objected to such abuses and asked them not to commit encroachment. This enraged the accused persons. They leaped into the barn of Safat and assaulted him. The deceased was given lathi, Farsa (axe) and Barchi (spear) blows. The evidence discloses that Bachchu was holding Farsa (axe), late Kariya was using Barchi (spear) and late Basira was wielding Lathi. Women of the family Smt. Jabbo and Sabbo were also present in the barn (Khalihan) and were busy in applying mud on the floor. They tried to save Safat but they were also beaten by late accused Basira with lathies. 14. It is evident that oral testimonies given by P.W. 1 Hayat Ahmad (informant), P.W.2 Jabbo and P.W. 3 Usman are highly credible. Smt. Jabbo was in fact injured in the same incident though suffered minor injuries but was injured nevertheless. The presence of Usman is absolutely natural. In fact it was the entry of accused persons in the barn of Usman which begat the incident. The testimony of Hayat Ahmad, Jabbo and Usman are of high quality. Their evidence is natural, trustworthy and consistent with the normal human conduct. The argument that the testimony should be disbelieved merely because their inter-se relationship and their kinship with deceased is not sustainable. The testimony of Hayat Ahmad, Jabbo and Usman are of high quality. Their evidence is natural, trustworthy and consistent with the normal human conduct. The argument that the testimony should be disbelieved merely because their inter-se relationship and their kinship with deceased is not sustainable. The testimony of witness is tested and analyzed on the touch stone of credibility. The witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because they are related to each other. If incident has occurred in a place where the presence of family member is natural or the presence of other public witnesses is not easily possible then the otherwise trustworthy testimony of witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground of stated relationship. 15. The Hon. Apex Court in Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 6 SCC 441 , has held that relationship between the deceased and the witness is not a good ground for disbelieving the testimony of witnesses. In such cases even the absence of public witnesses would not necessarily have unfavourable affect on the otherwise reliable witnesses. In Chapho @ Jakal v. State of Kerala, (1998) 6 SCC 602, the Apex Court has held that even if public witnesses are present and yet not produced that alone cannot be a ground for rejecting the testimony of otherwise trustworthy witnesses. In the case of Nallamsetty Yanadaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 Cri LJ 408, the Apex Court has ruled that the testimony of oral witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground of interestedness, though their testimony must be appraised carefully. 16. We have carefully examined all materials on record and believe that there was no occasion for P.W. 1 Hayat Ahmad, P.W. 2 Jabbo and P.W. 3 Usman to falsely implicate accused persons for the death of their relative and let go the real culprit. The story that Safat Ahmad died in the night has already been belied by the testimony of both doctors. P.W.8 Dr. R.S. Kushwaha initially examined the injuries of deceased and another injured. He has specifically opined that these injuries were probably caused on 17.4.1980 at about 9 am. The testimony of P.W. 6 Dr. R.S. Verma who conducted autopsy on the person of deceased Safat Ahmad also opined that the injuries sustained by deceased have been caused in the morning at 17.4.1980. The testimony of Dr. R.S. Verma also reinforces the prosecution story. The testimony of P.W. 6 Dr. R.S. Verma who conducted autopsy on the person of deceased Safat Ahmad also opined that the injuries sustained by deceased have been caused in the morning at 17.4.1980. The testimony of Dr. R.S. Verma also reinforces the prosecution story. We believe that there is no inconsistency between the ocular testimony and medical report. In any case, medical report should never be compared with oral testimony in mechanical fashion. The Apex Court in Vithal Pundalik Zendge v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) (2) ACR 1497 (SC), has held that minor discrepancies in the statement of witnesses is not enough to reject the testimony of injured witnesses. 17. In G.S. Walia v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 5 SCC 150 , the Apex Court has held that the comparison of medical evidence with ocular testimony should not be done in mechanical manner. In the aforesaid case, some injuries caused by sharp edged weapon was found by doctor but in ocular testimony there was no mention of sharp edged weapon yet the Apex Court refused to reject the testimony of oral witnesses. 18. This view was again reiterated by Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Premi and others, 2003 Cri LJ 1554. In this case medical opinion stated that margins of injuries were soft and probably caused by sharp edged weapon while the prosecution story said that injuries were caused by butt of revolver. This stated discrepancy was argued before the Apex Court but Apex Court rejected this minor discrepancy and affirmed the sentence against the accused persons. 19. In the instant case, there is no significant discrepancy between oral testimony and medical report. Medical report prepared by Dr. R.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 8) talks of lacerated wounds, incised wounds and penetrated injuries. These injuries are naturally caused by sharp edged weapon and lathies. The penetrating wound was caused by spear. Evidence discloses that appellant Bachchu was holding Farsa (axe) at the time of attack while late accused Kariya and Basira were wielding Barchi (spear) and lathi respectively. The ocular evidence further discloses that Smt. Sabbo and Smt. Jabbo were only attacked by lathi when they tried to intervene. Injuries, therefore, then caused on their persons were comparatively simple. This description of pain to the doctor does have some discrepancies especially in the testimony of Smt. Jabbo. The ocular evidence further discloses that Smt. Sabbo and Smt. Jabbo were only attacked by lathi when they tried to intervene. Injuries, therefore, then caused on their persons were comparatively simple. This description of pain to the doctor does have some discrepancies especially in the testimony of Smt. Jabbo. There are some discrepancies between the injuries entered into the G.D (general Diary) of police station Khanna and the injury report prepared by medical officer. It is stated that G.D.(Ex. Ka-3) talks that Smt. Jabbo had disclosed pain on shoulder and joint of hips while the medical report says that there were contusions on the thigh. But this contradiction was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that description of minor injuries especially of pain at various times may be different as Smt. Jabbo was not only illiterate woman but she described the existence of pain to the police personnel and thereafter to the doctor on a different times. It is possible that her shoulder might have been in pain at the time of her presence in police station but Dr. Kushwaha only recorded the contusions which were apparent to him. Smt. Jabbo might have not informed the doctor about the shoulder pain or the pain in the other part of her body or pain on other parts of her body might have been eased by the time she came into contact of doctor. Her anguish on the simultaneous death of close family member could have deadened her own misery. We believe that this so called discrepancy is not enough to reject the testimony of Smt. Jabbo. In any case, there is enough evidence on record to demonstrate the presence of informant Hayat Ahmad, Usman and Smt. Jabbo on the spot. The core of medical report is inconsistent with the oral testimony of all witnesses. 20. Learned counsel for appellant has also argued that place of occurrence is vague and therefore, testimony of witnesses cannot be believed. We are afraid that this argument of learned counsel for appellant is not sustainable. There are no discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses as regards to the place of occurrence. Site plan also reinforces the ocular testimony of witnesses. The evidence discloses that deceased Safat was busy in threshing of agricultural produce in his barn (Khalihan). We are afraid that this argument of learned counsel for appellant is not sustainable. There are no discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses as regards to the place of occurrence. Site plan also reinforces the ocular testimony of witnesses. The evidence discloses that deceased Safat was busy in threshing of agricultural produce in his barn (Khalihan). It has been established that verbal altercation started in the barn of Usman but suddenly accused rushed towards the barn of Safat when Safat objected to their abuses and they assaulted Safat in his barn. Site plan (Ex. Ka 10) also reinforces the prosecution story in this regard. Learned counsel for appellant has raised another argument saying that blood stains were not found on the bullock cart and on the cloths of women who tried to embrace the deceased. The incident occurred in the barn where threshing had been going on vigorously, therefore, it is very much possible that the traces of blood were blown away while grain was being separated from the chaff. But blood stains were indeed found on the cot where the deceased Safat was put for some time. As far as the blood stains on Smt. Jabbo and Smt. Sabbo are concerned, there is no evidence on record to show that their injuries caused any blood stains. Apart from that there is no evidence that women of the family embraced the injured. In any case, cloths of the women were not taken into possession as stated by Investigating Officer in his testimony. Therefore, even if the cloths were stained with the blood, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that. Investigating Officer admittedly did not take the cloths of injured in his possession. The statement of the Investigating Officer discloses that he conducted the investigation in lackadaisical manner but that alone cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of otherwise trustworthy witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri LJ 1282, has held that every failure or omission of Investigating Officer cannot render prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of believe. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri LJ 1282, has held that every failure or omission of Investigating Officer cannot render prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of believe. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment Bishundeo Poddar and others v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cri LJ 1558, has held: “Be that as it may, the fate of the case does not depend on what the Investigating Officer or the prosecutor ought to have done and evidence ought to have been led. The fate depends on the evidence which is on record.” 21. We have carefully examined all material on record and we believe that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts despite the existence of minor discrepancies. We also believe that core of medical evidence is in-consonance with the oral testimony. The ocular testimony rendered by prosecution witnesses is highly credible. The presence of witnesses on the spot has been established. Considering all facts and circumstances we believe that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused by credible and trustworthy evidence. 22. The judgment and order dated 28.2.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 221 of 1980 (State v. Bachchu and another) arising out of Crime No. 55 of 1980, P.S. Khanna, District Hamirpur does not require any interference. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appellant Bachchu is on bail, his bail bonds are cencelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below to serve the remaining period of his sentence. Let a copy of this order be sent to concerned Court through Sessions Judge, Hamirpur for compliance within ten days. The concerned Court will thereafter report the compliance to this Court within a month. ———————