JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—By way of aforesaid Criminal Appeals, the two appellants Raeesh and Haji Munna, have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2009, arising out of case crime No. 43 of 2009 State v. Raeesh and others, under Section 302, 302/34 I.P.C. and in Sessions Trial No. 396 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 44 of 2009 State v. Raeesh, under sub-section 1 (b) Part (b) of Section 25 Arms Act, respectively, whereby the appellant Raeesh has been sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 3000/- under sub-section (1B) (b) of Section 25 Arms Act, and appellant Haji Munna has been sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302/34 IPC, in case of default in payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for two months and one month, respectively. Sentences to run concurrently. 2. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, Sri R. K. Srivastava and Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Pinki Rani Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Sri N.K. S. Yadav, Km. Meena, Ms. Manju Thakur and Sri Rahul Asthana learned A.G.As. for the State and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case as reflected from the record and particularly from First Information Report appears to be that first informant Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey son of Mohd. Tahir resident of Nadir Mahal, Hathi Wala ‘Pul’, Police Station Delhigate District Aligarh, lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Aligarh on 15.2.2009 at about 1 p.m. against the aforesaid appellants with allegations that contractor Hazi Zahir had engaged him to supervise work (slaughtering of animals) at the Government slaughter house. While supervising work, on 15.2.2009, at that point of time, Muddasir son of Mohd. Yasin, Hazi Wahid son of late Hazi Mohd Sabir and Hamid son of late Hazi Mohd. Safir, were also present over there and his brother Irshad was also helping him in his work. Around 12 noon, Mohd. While supervising work, on 15.2.2009, at that point of time, Muddasir son of Mohd. Yasin, Hazi Wahid son of late Hazi Mohd Sabir and Hamid son of late Hazi Mohd. Safir, were also present over there and his brother Irshad was also helping him in his work. Around 12 noon, Mohd. Raeesh son of Hazi Rasheed possessing knife in his hand, accompanied by his brother Hazi Munna and his father Hazi Rasheed, came through the door inside the slaughter house and hurled abuses and after coming close to the informant, they insisted upon delivery of the goods which had already been purchased by the first informant. They said that except them no one else can take the goods. First informant and his brother Irshad asked them not to do the same, whereupon, Hazi Rasheed exhorted (co-accused) to kill and today they would not spare them, whereupon, Hazi Mulla and Hazi Rasheed caught informant’s brother Irshad and Mohd. Raeesh inflicted knife blow on the chest of Irshad with intention to kill him. Consequently, Irshad was seriously injured. He was taken to Malkhan Singh Government Hospital Aligarh by Mumtaj and Arif Munshi by motorcycle where Irshad was declared dead. First information report also contains description that Mohd. Raeesh was caught on the spot with knife by the first informant, Muddassir, Hazi Wahid, and Hamid. However other, co-accused Hazi Munna and Hazi Rasheed made their escape good towards Mathura Bye-pass. Number of people arrived at the spot after hearing hue and cry. They also tried to nab the two culprits, but in vain. The first infornant has come to lodge this report alongwith captured accused Mohd. Raeesh with recovered weapon knife. Report be lodged and appropriate action be taken. This written report is Ext. Ka. 1. 4. Contents of this written report were taken down in the concerned check First Information Report at case crime No. 43 of 2009, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and at case crime No. 44 of 2009, under Section 4/25 Arms Act (against Raeesh). Check FIR is Ext. Ka. 4. 5. On the basis of entries so made in the check FIR, the case was registered against the appellants in G.D. Entry No. 22 at 1.00 p.m. under aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and Arms Act, respectively, on 15.2.2009 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh, which G.D. entry is Ext. Ka. 5. 6. Check FIR is Ext. Ka. 4. 5. On the basis of entries so made in the check FIR, the case was registered against the appellants in G.D. Entry No. 22 at 1.00 p.m. under aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and Arms Act, respectively, on 15.2.2009 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh, which G.D. entry is Ext. Ka. 5. 6. It is also reflected from record and particularly from the testimony of Amar Pal Singh P.W. 4, that a recovery memo of knife was also prepared by him which memo of recovery is Ext. Ka-2, while Knife is material Ext. 2. 7. Thereafter, investigation of the case followed and was initially taken over by Mohd. Faiz Kamal P.W. 6. He proceeded to Malkhan Singh Government Hospital Aligarh alongwith the other police personnels and got prepared inquest report through S.I. Balram Singh Yadav which inquest report is Ext. Ka. 8. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest report it was thought appropriate to send the dead body for post-mortem examination for ascertaining real cause of death. Relevant papers, for sending the dead body for autopsy, were prepared. In the process relevant papers-letter to R.I., letter to the Chief Medical Officer Aligarh, challan of dead body, Photo Nash etc. were prepared and these papers have been proved as Ext. Ka. 9 to Ka. 13 by Mohd. Faiz Kamal PW-6. 8. Thereafter, the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Irshad, took place at mortuary Aligarh at 5.30 p.m. on 15.2.2009 wherein one ante-mortem injury was noted which is extracted hereinbelow as : “Stabbed wound at front of chest left side 4 cm medial to nipple at 9.30 O’clock position; size of wound is 4 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep; partly clotted blood oozing from the wound.” 9. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. This post-mortem examination report has been proved by Dr. S.K. Sharma P.W. 3 as Ext. Ka. 3. 10. The Investigating Officer Faiz Kamal PW-6 also proceeded to spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of first informant (Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey) which site plan is Ext. Ka.14. He also found certain shoes and slippers scattered on the spot, and prepared memo of the same which is Ext. Ka. 15. Ka. 3. 10. The Investigating Officer Faiz Kamal PW-6 also proceeded to spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of first informant (Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey) which site plan is Ext. Ka.14. He also found certain shoes and slippers scattered on the spot, and prepared memo of the same which is Ext. Ka. 15. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by another Inspector Veer Pal Sirohi P.W. 5. He recorded statement of prosecution witnesses of fact and formal witnesses during the course of investigation besides recording statement of the accused persons. After completing the investigation Charge-sheet against the appellants was filed at case crime No. 43 of 2009 under Section 302, 504 I.P.C. which is Ext. Ka. 6. Charge-sheet No. 34/09 filed in case crime No. 44 of 2009 against accused Raeesh under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act- which is Ext. Ka. 7. 11. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution was committed to the Court of Session where the appellants were tried under aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and Arms Act, respectively. In this regard, two Sessions Trials were conducted i.e. Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2009 dealt with offences arising out of case crime No. 43 of 2009 and Sessions Trial No. 396 of 2009 arising out of case crime No. 44 of 2009 against accused Raeesh under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Kotwali Nagar, district Aligarh. 12. Relevant to mention that both the aforesaid sessions trials were connected with the same incident, therefore, both were consolidated and were disposed of by common judgment and order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Aligarh. 13. The trial Court heard the appellants on point of charge and, prima facie, ground was found existing for framing charges under Section 302/34, 504 I.P.C. against the appellants and Section 25 Arms Act. The accused persons denied the charges and opted for trial. Thereafter, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony, whereupon the prosecution produced six witnesses out of whom Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey-PW-1 and Hazi Abdul Wahid PW-2 are said to be the eye-witnesses of the incident and they have described the manner of happening of occurrence. Out of the two witnesses, Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey PW-1 is first informant, and brother of deceased Irshad and Hazi Abdul Wahid P.W. 2 is uncle of deceased. Dr. Out of the two witnesses, Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey PW-1 is first informant, and brother of deceased Irshad and Hazi Abdul Wahid P.W. 2 is uncle of deceased. Dr. S.K. Sharma P.W. 3 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Irshad and has proved the post-mortem examination report (Ext. Ka-3). Constable Amar Pal Singh P.W. 4 has made certain entries in the concerned check FIR and the G.D. entry on 15.2.2009. Besides, he has also proved material Ext. 2, the alleged weapon (knife) used in the incident. The first Investigating Officer, who initiated the investigation after the report was lodged on 15.2.2009 till evening of 15.2.2009 is Mohd. Faiz Kamal P.W. 6 He got prepared inquest report Ext. Ka. 8, besides completing various other formalities like preparing relevant papers for sending dead body of Irshad for post-mortem examination at mortuary Aligarh. Subsequently, the second, Investigating Officer Inspector Veer Pal Singh Sirohi, who took over the investigation on the very same day (15.2.2009) around 10.40 p.m. recorded statement of various witnesses including accused persons and filed charge-sheets against the appellants. 14. Thereafter, the evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they termed their implication false on account of enmity and alleged that the witnesses of fact being relative of the deceased are highly interested witnesses. The appellants, on their turn got examined Mohd. Mumtiyaz @ Mumtaj son of Babu Khan as D.W. 1. He has testified to the fact that he was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He reached at the slaughter house around 7.30 a.m. on 15.2.2009 where he saw Irshad lying on the ground seeped with blood. He has been cross-examined at length by the D.G.C.(Crl.) 15. Learned trial Court after hearing both the sides on merit, passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 14.12.2010 against the appellants and imposed on them sentences (aforesaid). 16. Consequently this appeal. 17. It would be pertinent to record at this stage that one of the co-accused Hazi Rasheed, who had also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2011 against same impugned judgment and order of conviction (14.12.2010), died during pendency of this appeal, as such his aforesaid appeal stood abated vide order of this Court dated 4.7.2016. 18. Consequently this appeal. 17. It would be pertinent to record at this stage that one of the co-accused Hazi Rasheed, who had also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2011 against same impugned judgment and order of conviction (14.12.2010), died during pendency of this appeal, as such his aforesaid appeal stood abated vide order of this Court dated 4.7.2016. 18. We have been persuaded vigorously on behalf of the appellants on several specific counts by contending that prosecution witnesses are chance witnesses. Their presence on the spot is doubtful. Their conduct on the spot is not natural. Their testimony contradicts each-other in material particulars. If testimony of one witness of fact is taken to be correct, then, testimony of the other witness of fact is rendered highly unreliable. The manner and style of the occurrence is not proved. Accused Raeesh is an old person and had undergone surgical operation of his stomach and he was not in a position to cause knife blow on the deceased Irshad. 19. On the motive count, it can be said that the same is weak and not sufficient for committing murder. Testimony of witnesses is partisan and they being relatives of the deceased, are highly interested witnesses, as such, their testimony is wholly unreliable. Testimony of witnesses of fact is not corroborated by testimony of any independent witness. Neither blood stained earth nor simple earth was collected from the spot which renders place of occurrence doubtful. The First Information Report is ante timed. In fact, the relevant general diary entry was stopped and FIR was lodged only after preparation of inquest report. 20. The entire investigation was mechanically done by the two Investigating Officers and no worthy evidence was collected which may justify filing of charge-sheet and the conviction against present appellants. The distance from place of occurrence to the police station is stated to be 2 Kms. as per reference contained in the check FIR. However, the report was lodged after one hour of the incident which is ante timed. No weapon, in fact, was recovered from the possession of the accused Raeesh and nature of injury sustained by the deceased cannot be caused by use of such weapon. as per reference contained in the check FIR. However, the report was lodged after one hour of the incident which is ante timed. No weapon, in fact, was recovered from the possession of the accused Raeesh and nature of injury sustained by the deceased cannot be caused by use of such weapon. The description of manner of the incident by so called eye-witnesses virtually throws doubt on the entire testimony of the witnesses particularly in the circumstances, when the father and one son escaped from the scene leaving behind the (other) son to be caught on the spot ! Under the circumstances, it is obvious that the deceased was killed somewhere-else in the darkness of night by some unknown persons and the present appellants have been roped in, in this case on account of enmity and ‘Partibandi’. No effort was made by the Investigating Officer to send the alleged knife for examination of finger print existing on it. 21. Learned counsel summed up that the appellants have also produced D.W. 1 Mumtiyaj @ Mumtaj who has correctly testified that he reached at the slaughter house at 7.30 a.m. in the morning where he found crowd of 40 to 50 persons and deceased Irshad was lying on the spot seeped with blood. This story is self explanatory of fact that the incident did not take place around 12 noon on 15.2.2009. D.W. 1 has denied fact that he ever saw any such incident and that he took the deceased on his motor cycle to the concerned Government hospital. He has also denied the fact that he ever saw the appellant Raeesh being caught by the informant. 22. Per contra, the aforesaid arguments have been replied by the learned A.G.As. by submitting that it is broad day light occurrence when murder was caused in Government slaughter house. The place of occurrence is definite i.e. Government slaughter house. The cause/motive for occurrence is also established that the appellants insisted for taking the already purchased flesh of animals of informant’s side and when refused, the appellants retaliated with force and caused death of Irshad without any reason. The report was promptly lodged at concerned police station. 23. The place of occurrence is definite i.e. Government slaughter house. The cause/motive for occurrence is also established that the appellants insisted for taking the already purchased flesh of animals of informant’s side and when refused, the appellants retaliated with force and caused death of Irshad without any reason. The report was promptly lodged at concerned police station. 23. There is no doubt about the place of occurrence-the Government slaughter house and at the time of occurrence, number of animals had been slaughtered and pool of blood of animals was scattered all over the spot and the ground was more or less soaked with animals’ blood, therefore, it was not possible for the Investigating Officer to collect any blood stained soil. Had it been so done, that could have been artificial act on the part of the Investigating Officer and question mark would have been raised on such investigation. However, slippers/shoes left behind after the incident were collected by S.I. Mohd. Faiz Kamal, Investigating Officer PW-6 and recovery memo of the same was prepared which is Ext. Ka. 15. Not only this, the accused Raeesh was also caught on the spot after little chase, just after murder of Irshad. In this backdrop of events, there was hardly any possibility for sparing real accused and naming falsely innocent persons like the present appellants and there is no such strong motive for false implication of the appellants if they were unconcerned with the incident. Moreover, the motivating force behind the offence arose on the spot and their adamant behaviour that was very specific to the point that the accused persons insisted upon taking animals’ flesh which had already been purchased by the informant’s side. 24. The various details of the incident and the manner of assault and particularly the fact that the two accused caught hold of the deceased Irshad and Raeesh gave knife blow on his chest, stands corroborated by the medical testimony, therefore, it cannot be said that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact is not worthy of credence. On the contrary, their testimony on the whole, is consistent, clinching and inspiring confidence. The presence of the prosecution witnesses (of fact) on the spot is natural and there is no whisper from the circumstances or fact that the incident was caused by some unknown persons in the darkness of night. On the contrary, their testimony on the whole, is consistent, clinching and inspiring confidence. The presence of the prosecution witnesses (of fact) on the spot is natural and there is no whisper from the circumstances or fact that the incident was caused by some unknown persons in the darkness of night. Merely because, the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, will not be a ground for throwing away the prosecution case in absence of any determination that these witnesses are highly inimical towards the accused persons and were interested in ensuring conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Death of the deceased cannot be said to have occurred during night, because, the doctor witness has himself stated that the death of the deceased could have taken place between 12 noon to 12.15 p.m. 25. We have also considered above rival submissions. 26. The moot point that arises for our consideration is primarily confined to fact whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt? 27. The very foundation of the prosecution case is grounded in the written report Ext. Ka. 1 wherein allegations have been made against the appellants to the ambit that the occurrence took place on 15.2.2009 around 12.00 noon and place of occurrence is Government slaughterhouse and the contractor of this slaughterhouse was Hazi Jaheer who had asked the first informant Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey to supervise work in the slaughterhouse. It is stated that while the work was under progress, the accused persons namely Mohd. Raeesh son of Hazi Rasheed bearing knife in his hand and his brother Hazi Munna son of Haji Rasheed in company with his father Hazi Rasheed son of Jaleel came on the spot and insisted insolently upon purchasing goods (animals’ flesh), which had already been purchased and they were adamant that they alone will take all the above goods. The first informant and his brother Irshad asked them not to do so whereupon Hazi Rasheed exhorted to kill them and they should not be spared alive. At this stage, Hazi Munna and Hazi Rasheed caught informant’s brother Irshad and Mohd. The first informant and his brother Irshad asked them not to do so whereupon Hazi Rasheed exhorted to kill them and they should not be spared alive. At this stage, Hazi Munna and Hazi Rasheed caught informant’s brother Irshad and Mohd. Raeesh with intent to kill, gave knife blow on the chest of Irshad due to which Irshad was seriously injured and he was taken to Malkhan Singh Government Hospital Aligarh by Mumtaj son of Babu and Arif Munshi where, the doctor declared him dead. The written report also alleges the fact that the first informant caught one of the accused Mohd. Raeesh with knife on the spot with the help of Muddassir, Hazi Wahid and Hamid. Accused Haji Munna and Haji Rasheed made their escape good towards Mathura Bye Pass Road. In the last line of this report, it has been stated that informant has come to lodge this report with the captured accused Mohd. Raeesh bearing knife. 28. Thereafter, the investigation ensued and Mohd. Faiz Kamal P.W. 6 was initially entrusted with the investigation. He arrrived at the spot and took note of the situation and prepared site plan and before doing so he rushed to Malkhan Singh Hospital where he got prepared the inquest report. Preparation of inquest report commenced at 2.30 p.m. and ended at 4.30 p.m. on 15.2.2009 at Malkhan Singh Government Hospital Aligarh. Besides, the Investigating Officer also prepared memo of certain slippers and shoes that were left over on the spot as a result of stampede that followed the alleged incident. 29. Now, in such scenario, we may appraise and dip into factual testimony qua circumstances of the case and particularly testimony of the two eye-witnesses-PW-1 and PW-2 i.e. Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey and Hazi Abdul Wahid, respectively. Cummulative reading of their testimony corroborates the contents of FIR when they say that the incident took place around 12 noon on 15.2.2009. At that point of time, Hazi Wahid, Muddassir, Hamid and deceased Irshad were present in the concerned slaughterhouse. P.W. 1 (Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey) was supervising work over there and a number of traders had come for slaughtering of their animals. First informant P.W. 1 had purchased the slaughtered goods. Informant’s brother Irshad was assisting the work. In the meanwhile, the accused persons Hazi Munna Hazi Rasheed and Raeesh came over there abusing. P.W. 1 (Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey) was supervising work over there and a number of traders had come for slaughtering of their animals. First informant P.W. 1 had purchased the slaughtered goods. Informant’s brother Irshad was assisting the work. In the meanwhile, the accused persons Hazi Munna Hazi Rasheed and Raeesh came over there abusing. Raeesh was possessing knife in his hand and they insisted that none else, except they alone, will take the goods and with such utterance they forcibly started taking away the goods (slaughtered flesh), first informant (Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey) and his brother Irshad opposed the same. Then Hazi Rasheed exhorted to kill them and, in the meanwhile, Hazi Rasheed and Hazi Munna caught hold of two hands of the deceased Irshad and Raeesh with intent to kill, pierced knife into his chest. P.W. 1 and 2 and two others chased Raeesh and caught him with knife while Hazi Rasheed and Haji Munna the other co-accused secured their escape good towards Mathura bye-pass. 30. It has also come in their testimony (PW-1 and PW-2) that the deceased was taken to Malkhan Singh Government Hospital Aligarh by Arif and Mumtaj on motorcycle and thereafter report was lodged at the police station where Raeesh was kept in confinement and seizure/recovery memo of knife was also prepared. PW-1 Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey has proved written report Ext. Ka. 1 and also recovery memo of knife-Ext. Ka. 2. Testimony of both the above eye-witnesses discloses fact that Irshad died in Malkhan Singh Government Hospital Aligarh. Both these witnesses have been cross-examined. In their cross-examination, certain facts have emerged relating to routine work of the Government slaughterhouse that ordinarily, work begins at the slaughterhouse around 7 a.m. but on the day of occurrence it started at 11.00 a.m. On that day Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey (PW-1) went to slaughter house at 7.00 a.m. It also emerges from their cross-examination that on that day the goods (animals meant for slaughtering) were supplied around 11.00 a.m. therefore, the work started at 11.00 a.m. and the incident took place around 12 noon when lot of work had been accomplished. A number of specific questions have been asked from both the witnesses on the point of time, manner of assault and presence of accused on the spot, which have been specific replied by the eye-witnesses; but nothing adverse emerged which may throw any doubt on their testimony. Presence on the spot of the two eye-witnesses also appears natural. 31. Perusal of their testimony (PW-1 and PW-2) on the whole appears to be clinching and consistent on the point of description of the occurrence. It has not been suggested by the defence that PW 1 Bahar Ahmad @ Chhotey was engaged somewhere-else in some other work. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence has been stated to be 2 kms. Therefore, lodging of the FIR at 1.00 p.m. after the incident took place around 12.00 noon, at police station Kotwali Nagar District Aligarh, is found to be prompt one. 32. Perusal of the inquest report, Ext. Ka. 8, indicates that all the relevant details i.e. case crime numbers, sections of I.P.C. commencement of preparation of inquest report at 2.30 p.m. and its closure at 4.30 p.m. also indicates that prompt action was taken by the police soon after the report was lodged about the incident in question. 33. Argument has been advanced that the FIR is ante time but such contention, in the face of testimony and circumstances of this case, appears to be unsustainable in view of the fact that the time of preparation of inquest report, suitably matches the relevant time of lodging of the FIR. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the fact that the post-mortem examination on the dead body was done at 5.30 p.m. on 15.2.2009 itself. Police Form No. 13 challan of dead body Ext. Ka. 10 reflects that the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination after 4.30 p.m. on 15.2.2009 and the same was received at mortuary at 5.20 p.m. Each and every relevant paper made during course of investigation has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, argument that the First Information Report is ante time, cannot be accepted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. Therefore, argument that the First Information Report is ante time, cannot be accepted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. A number of questions have been asked regarding non presence of these two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) on the spot whereupon, it has been testified by both the witnesses P.W. 1 and 2 that at that relevant point of time, they were engaged in slaughtering of animals at the Government slaughterhouse. Their presence at any other place at that point of time, cannot be inferred from their cross-examination and examination in chief. 35. Relevant to mention that doubt has been tried to be raised regarding place of occurrence because no blood stained earth/soil and simple earth/soil was collected by the Investigating Officer from the spot. But testimony has come forth from Mohd. Faiz Kamal PW-6 that he prepared site plan at the instance of first informant PW-1. He has been cross-examined on the relevant point of collection of blood stained earth from place of occurrence wherein he has stated that blood in plenty was spread all over the places and certainly this blood was due to the slaughtering of animals in the concerned slaughter house, therefore, it was virtually impossible to collect exclusively any blood sample from the spot. Moreover, the witnesses of fact have also been cross-examined on this point and they have stated that the blood had not spilled on the ground but it remained confined to the clothes of the deceased. Therefore, collection of blood from the spot was not possible. Moreso, regarding presence of the prosecution witnesses and particularly presence of Raeesh on the spot is virtually admitted to the defence when it suggested that Raeesh in fact was caught at a distance of 50-60 steps by the first informant, which suggestion has been denied that this is not correct to say that the first informant ran for about 50-60 steps and then caught Raeesh. It has been testified by P.W. 1 on page-33 of the paper book that Raeesh was chased and caught after running 5-6 steps. This way, by extending particular suggestion, defence has admitted the presence of the witnesses of fact on the spot. It has been testified by P.W. 1 on page-33 of the paper book that Raeesh was chased and caught after running 5-6 steps. This way, by extending particular suggestion, defence has admitted the presence of the witnesses of fact on the spot. Both the witnesses have testified in their cross-examination that the place of the occurrence has been shown to the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot at 5.30 p.m. on 15.2.2009, therefore, presence of both the witnesses of fact P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, on the spot is established. 36. Now, so far as the motive point of the offence is concerned, it can be conveniently observed, that motive has got no significance in view of the ocular testimony of the offence by the two witnesses of fact. However, motive suggested is quite relevant that accused persons said that they will take away the goods which had already been purchased by the first informant and on the refusal of the same, the accused persons became adamant and insisted for delivery of the goods and started taking away the goods and in the process the offence was committed. Therefore, the motive to commit crime was act of the accused themselves on the spot and it just preceded the incident and this fact has been satisfactorily proved by the two prosecution witnesses of fact. 37. One particular aspect of the case engages our attention that both the witnesses have described the incident, manner of assault and have stated that after the assault was caused on the chest of deceased Irshad, he did not fall down on the ground, but the witnesses caught him while he was in the process of falling down. This particular description of occurrence is very special and persons who were present on the spot alone, can describe the incident in such a manner. We are conscious of fact that certain minor contradictions are bound to be there but both the witnesses of fact have proved comprehensively about the manner and style of the occurrence, which testimony, under facts and circumstances, is unimpeachable, therefore, we see no reason to disbelieve their version. 38. We are conscious of fact that certain minor contradictions are bound to be there but both the witnesses of fact have proved comprehensively about the manner and style of the occurrence, which testimony, under facts and circumstances, is unimpeachable, therefore, we see no reason to disbelieve their version. 38. Our attention has also been invited to the testimony of P.W. 2 Hazi Abdul Wahid in the last paragraph of his cross-examination as appearing on Page 59 of the paper book when this witness has stated that Irshad deceased came on the spot around 11.00 a.m., whereas, in the testimony of PW-1, it has been described that Irshad had accompanied him to the concerned slaughter house from the house. But, this variation cannot be said to have any relevance about absence of the deceased at the relevant point of occurrence which took place around 12.00 noon. Therefore, the statement so appearing in the cross-examination of P.W. 2 does not effect the fact of presence of deceased Irshad on the spot. This statement may be taken as an isolated aberration and will not have any relevance on the actual occurrence. 39. At this stage, it would be relevant to have appraisal of testimony of doctor witness P.W. 3 S.K. Sharma who conducted post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Irshad in order to assess the approximate time of death of the deceased as to when death of Irshad took place. This doctor witness has testified that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Irshad on 15.2.2009 around 5.30 p.m., on the date when the incident took place. Only one ante-mortem injury in form of stab wound on front of chest left side 4 cm medial to nipple on 9.30 O’clock position measuring 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep was found. Wound was partly clotted and blood oozing from the wound. Duration of death was stated to be within six hours. Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of aforesaid ante-mortem injury. It has come in the testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact particularly P.W. 1 that he cannot say whether the deceased had taken any break fast in the morning of 15.2.2009 or not. The Doctor has submitted that the deceased might have taken food 4-5 hours before his death. However, in the post-mortem report, stomach has been shown to be empty. The Doctor has submitted that the deceased might have taken food 4-5 hours before his death. However, in the post-mortem report, stomach has been shown to be empty. Therefore, opinion of doctor that the deceased might have taken food 4-5 hours before his death remains an opinion based on his personal knowledge and cannot be applied squarely in this case and it cannot be said whether the deceased had taken any food or breakfast in the morning of fateful day or not. Doctor has himself opined in the last line of his examination in chief that death in question could have occurred around 12.00 noon to 12.15 p.m. This specific testimony regarding time of death has neither been challenged nor put to any doubt in cross-examination by the appellants. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt regarding approximate time of death that coincides with occurrence and we have discussed above about the incident that it took place around 12 noon on 15.2.2009. 40. Now, we may also consider and analyze the attendant circumstances of the case as appearing in the testimony on record vis a vis the fact of the case. Obviously, the first informant used to supervise slaughtering work of animals at the Government slaughter house where work in fact started around 11.00 a.m. though the routine work at the Government slaughterhouse usually began at 7.00 a.m., but on the day of occurrence, the goods/material (animals) meant for slaughtering was received late around 11.00 a.m., therefore, work on the day of the incident began at 11.00 a.m. and when the major part of slaughtering work had been over, three accused persons arrived on the spot amongst whom Raeesh was possessing knife, thereafter the accused persons became insolent and adamant and demanded purchased goods (i.e. animals’ flesh) which demand was resisted by the informant’s side and this was the motivating factor for causing assault, injury and death of Irshad by the appellants. Here, conjoint act on the part of all the accused and particularly two accused who caught hold of the hands of the deceased shows that the act was done in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons who had the common intention to commit the offence which they intended. Here, conjoint act on the part of all the accused and particularly two accused who caught hold of the hands of the deceased shows that the act was done in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons who had the common intention to commit the offence which they intended. The very manner of occurrence and participation of the accused persons in the incident lead us to inescapable inference that the accused persons were acting in furtherance of their common intention and they committed the offence what they intended. The injury caused on the chest is grievous and fatal and appellants should and must have sufficient cause to believe the outcome of offence committed by them in ghastly manner. 41. Dr. S.K. Sharma PW-3 has also proved that injury inflicted on the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. At the cost of repetition, we may add that no intriguing fact and circumstance has been brought on record which may impel us to affirm opinion that the prosecution witnesses of fact are trying to avail conviction of accused persons and they have bias towards them. In this way, we are of the view that the testimony of the witnesses of fact cannot be discarded on that count. Before parting with this aspect of the case, it would be relevant and proper at this stage to express that law is well-settled that such testimony of relative witnesses is not to be discarded merely on fact of their being relatives of deceased. Reason being that, in number of cases, we find that only relatives are available for giving evidence and particularly so having regard to the prevailing trends of our society, where persons other than relations are not ready to depose before the Court. We can also be careful that such testimony should be scrutinized scrupulously and carefully, which testimony we have already gone into. In such a matter, we have similar guiding context and we also take note of ratio of the decision of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Birender Poddar v. State of Bihar, 2011 Cri LJ 3120 (SC). Therefore, the ratio laid down by Hon. Apex Court also stands on the similar guidelines of scrupulous and careful scrutiny of such evidence. Therefore, the ratio laid down by Hon. Apex Court also stands on the similar guidelines of scrupulous and careful scrutiny of such evidence. We, after careful scrutiny of facts and evidence as discussed above, are of firm opinion, that presence of the witnesses on the spot is found to be natural and their version is corroborated in material particular with each other and the same cannot be said to be either embellished or tutored, therefore, their testimony on the whole is inspiring confidence. 42. We have already considered the material aspects of the occurrence which fit in the attendant circumstances and facts of this case and it eventually turns out that the prosecution has been able to prove charge against the accused appellants. The learned trial Court has also taken comprehensive view of the entire occurrence and has discussed its various aspects and rightly recorded the conviction against the present appellants and has passed sentence against them which needs no interference at this juncture. 43. Accordingly, we uphold the judgment of conviction and order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2009, arising out of case crime No. 43 of 2009 State v. Raeesh and others, under Section 302, 302/34 I.P.C. and in Sessions Trial No. 396 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 44 of 2009 State v. Raeesh, under sub-section (1B) (b) of Section 25 Arms Act. Consequently, the aforesaid appeals lack merit and the same are dismissed. 44. In this case, appellant Raheesh is in jail, whereas, the appellant Haji Munna is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith. Both the appellants shall serve out their respective remaining sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court. 45. Let a copy of this judgment/order be certified to the Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action.