JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—Present criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Rais @ Parwez Ansari son of Wali Mohammad Ansari R/o Chasiapura, Police Station-Mahoba, District-Hamirpur against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.1985 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1985, State v. Rais Alias Parwez Ansari, under Section 302 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 1984, Police Station-Mahoba, District-Hamirpur, whereby the appellant has been sentenced with life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution story, as reflected from perusal of the record, appears to be that one Sheikh Sahadat son of Munauwar R/o Pathanpura town and Police Station-Mahoba, District-Hamirpur lodged a written report at police station-Mahoba on 29.7.1984 at 11.00 a.m. to the effect that while complainant alongwith his brother Nisar Ahmad and Mohammad Idris (son of Sheikh Sahadat) were opening their bangle shop in Sabzimandi, Mahoba Kasba, when Rais alias Parwez Ansari son of Wali Mohammad Ansari R/o Chasiapura-Kasba, Mahoba was passing by the side of his shop on bicycle, his brother Nisar Ahmad stopped him and asked for payment/cost of bangles, but he refused to make any payment and on the contrary, he got agitated and abused filthily. Nisar Ahmad again asked for the money and said that he is poor man and he will ask for payment. This infuriated the appellant and he threatened that he will teach him a lesson and thereafter started assaulting his brother with knife and gave 3-4 knife blows on his neck and stomach. The incident was witnessed by Mohammad Rasheed son of Gulab R/o Pathanpura, Mohammad Rais son of Ibrahim R/o Maniharin Pura, Mahoba and Mumtaj son of Mohammad R/o Pathanpura, who challenged the assailant, the assailant made his escape good from the place of occurrence. The complainant alongwith his son Mohammad Idrish took the injured (Nisar Ahmad) to the hospital and got him admitted there at 9.00 a.m. but soon after he died. Report be lodged and action be taken. First Information Report is Exhibit Ka-1 and Chik FIR is Exhibit Ka-6 on the record. 3. The complainant alongwith his son Mohammad Idrish took the injured (Nisar Ahmad) to the hospital and got him admitted there at 9.00 a.m. but soon after he died. Report be lodged and action be taken. First Information Report is Exhibit Ka-1 and Chik FIR is Exhibit Ka-6 on the record. 3. Record reflects that doctor G.S. Pandey P.W.3 medically examined injured /deceased Nisar Ahmad son of Munauwar at the Government Hospital, Mahoba at 9 a.m. on 29.7.1984, (till then the injured was alive), and he found following injuries on his person: (1) Stabbed wound 2 cm x ½ cm (not probed) in right side of upper arm of epigastrain profuse bleeding, margins are sharp and clean. (2) Incised wounds 2-1/2 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep in right side palate just above neck at middle, fresh bleeding. (3) Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep with fresh bleeding in between left angle of mouth and nostril. Margins are sharp and clean. 4. According to the above medical report, all the injuries were fresh. Injury No. 1 was said to have been caused by sharp and penetrating weapon while injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation while injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were simple. Injury report is Exhibit Ka-2 on record. The general condition of the injured was poor, his pulse was not recordable and the injured was in a state of shock and semi consciousness. 5. During course of treatment the injured succumbed to his injuries and died around 10.30 a.m. on 29.7.1984. Information regarding death was sent to the police and the report was lodged at Police Station Mahoba narrating the incident, as detailed above. The investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer collected simple soil and blood stained earth (stone) from the place of incident. The inquest report Exhibit Ka-13 was prepared the very same day and completed around 1.30 p.m. and relevant papers were prepared for sending the body for post-mortem examination at District Hospital-Mahoba. The same doctor i.e. Dr. G.S. Pandey also conducted the postmotem examination on the dead body of deceased Nisar Ahmad, the very same day around 2.45 p.m., wherein the following three ante-mortem injuries were found; (1) Stitched wound on right side of upper part of epiqastrain. The same doctor i.e. Dr. G.S. Pandey also conducted the postmotem examination on the dead body of deceased Nisar Ahmad, the very same day around 2.45 p.m., wherein the following three ante-mortem injuries were found; (1) Stitched wound on right side of upper part of epiqastrain. (2) Stitched wound on upper part of neck at palate of middle jaw. (3) Stitched wound in between left nostril and angle of mouth. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. This post-mortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-3 on record. 6. The Investigating Officer completed investigation by recording statement of various persons and also preparing memo of various things and submitted charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-12 against the appellant, which is on record. 7. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the accused was heard on the point of charge and prima facie ground was found existing for framing charge under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, charge was framed and the same was explained to the appellant/accused in Hindi, who abjured charges and preferred trial. 8. Consequently, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony. The prosecution in all produced seven witnesses. P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat is the complainant and eye-witness of the incident. He had lodged the First Information Report. P.W.2 Mohd. Idris is also an eye-witness of the incident. P.W.3 Dr. G.S. Pandey, has proved the injury report, as Exhibit Ka-2 and has also proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit Ka-3. P.W.4 is Constable Ved Prakash. He has testified about safe custody of dead body. P.W.5 is Constable Balak Ram. He has proved Chik report, Exhibit Ka-6 and the concerned GD No. 15 relating to Crime No. 195 of 1984 as Exhibit Ka-7. He has also proved relevant GD No. 18, information regarding death of Nisar Ahmad. P.W.6 S.I. Kedar Nath Sharma is the I.O. He has proved the site plan, Exhibit Ka-9. Besides, he has detailed various other steps, he took during course of the investigation and prepared various fard/memos. P.W.7 is S.O. Lakhmir Singh, who completed the inquest report and has proved relevant papers for sending the dead body for portmortem examination as Exhibit Ka-13 to Ka-16. 9. Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has specifically stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. 9. Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has specifically stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. Bahadur and Ilahi Bux in collusion with Inspector Pachori have filed this case. The appellant has got examined D.W.1 Smt. Nisara Begum, she has testified about fact that Khalid son of Bahadur in collusion with 4-5 unknown persons tried to take possession of her house while she was in her house regarding which an application was moved before S.P. Mahoba, who after making endorsement on it directed her to move the same before the C.O. concerned. She has proved photocopy of the same as Exhibit Kha-1. 10. The learned trial Court after hearing both the prosecution and the accused recorded conviction under Section 302 IPC and awarded life sentence against him. Consequently, this appeal. 11. We have heard respective submissions of both the sides and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent. He has nothing to do with the offence in question. The very First Information Report is ante-time. The assault in question was caused by some unknown persons around 4 a.m. in the morning. No such altercation, as alleged ever took place between the appellant and the deceased. The site plan itself shows that the blood was found outside the the shop, whereas the incident allegedly took place inside the shop but no blood stains have been discovered inside the shop. Witnesses are close relatives and interested witnesses, therefore, their testimony is not reliable. The incident is not proved. In its entirety, appellant had no occasion to cause the alleged offence. The testimony of P.W.3 Dr. G.S. Pandey itself proves that the incident in question may have been caused somewhere else around 4 or 5 a.m. on 29.7.1994. 13. Learned A.G.A. while refuting the aforesaid argument vehemently submitted that the case of the prosecution is well proved beyond doubt. The very injury report itself suggests that at the time of medical examination, injuries were fresh and the doctor witness in his examination-in-chief has proved these injuries and has stated specifically that these injuries are likely to be caused around 8.30 a.m. on 29.7.1984 and this very fact has not been specifically challenged by the defence. No doubt the witnesses are relatives of the deceased. No doubt the witnesses are relatives of the deceased. But their testimony is most natural, consistent and nothing adverse has come out in their cross-examination, which may reflect that they are not speaking the truth and the same cannot be doubted. The testimony as a whole is inspiring confidence and reliability. 14. The testimony of D.W.1 Smt. Nisara Begum is shaky because no further effort was made by her, after the application was given to the C.O. regarding incident which took place for grabbing the house by Khalid son of Bahadur alongwith others. The site plan is most consistent and proves place of incident. The assault was caused not only inside the shop but also in front of the door of shop where the deceased eventually fell down after the assault and the same cannot be doubted. 15. Considered above rival submissions, too. Before proceeding further with the appreciation of case on merits, it would be appropriate to take note of relevant contents of the First Information Report. The very perusal of the First Information Report reflects that the incident allegedly took place around 8.30 a.m. on 29.7.1984. It was alleged that the basic motive for committing the offence was some altercation between the deceased Nisar Ahmad and the appellant regarding payment for cost of bangle. It is alleged that deceased Nisar Ahmad insisted for payment (cost of bangles), whereupon knife blow was given on his neck and stomach due to which he sustained injuries and died. In so far as point of motive is concerned, it is obvious that the case in hand relates to facts which have been witnessed by the complainant and other persons, therefore, point of motive loses its legal significance and the testimony of the eye-witnesses vis-a-vis circumstances of the case assumes importance. It has to be seen whether the testimony of eye-witnesses is reliable or not. 16. On careful scrutiny of testimony of eye-witnesses P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat, the complainant and brother of the deceased Nisar Ahmad, it comes out that he has given description of incident, as alleged in the First Information Report. We may take note of testimony of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat, whereupon it comes out that P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat has categorically stated that deceased Nisar Ahmad used to run bangle shop. We may take note of testimony of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat, whereupon it comes out that P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat has categorically stated that deceased Nisar Ahmad used to run bangle shop. The incident took place around 8.30 a.m., at that point of time this witness alongwith his son Mohammad Idrish (P.W.2) were cleaning their shop, as the shop was just opened. In the meanwhile, accused Rais arrived on the spot riding a bicycle from southern side. Deceased Nisar Ahmad stopped him and asked for payment of bangle. The accused initially refused to make any payment, whereupon the deceased again asked for payment of money. This infuriated the accused and he gave 3-4 knife blows to Nisar Ahmad, causing injuries on his neck and stomach. The incident was witnessed by other persons. 17. Mohammad Rasheed son of Gulab, Mohammed Rais son of Ibrahim and Mumtaj challenged the accused and tried to chase him, whereupon he made his escape good. Nisar Ahmad (deceased) fell down outside the shop due to injuries sustained by him. Blood oozed out and spilled on the spot. 18. As per his testimony, this witness (P.W.1 Sheikh Sahdat) alongwith Mohammad Idrish took Nisar Ahmad on a rickshaw to Government Hospital where deceased succumbed to his injuries. P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat was cross-examined, wherein he has testified the fact of lodging of First Information Report by dictating the same to one Jawahar Lal Shukla. He has also stated that he arrived at Government Hospital, Mahoba around 10 to 10.15 a.m. He was accompanied by his son Mohammad Idrish. It has been specifically stated in cross-examination that after 15 to 20 minutes of treatment, the deceased died. This witness has been strenuously cross-examined, wherein also he has confirmed causing of 3 to 4 knife blows on the person of injured/deceased Nisar Ahmad by the accused. He has denied suggestion regarding his absence on the spot. 19. Similarly P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish has deposed before the trial Court regarding the description and manner of incident on line similar to as deposed by the PW-1. Only this much difference appears in the testimony of P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish and the testimony of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat that the accused came from northern side. Whereas, P.W.1 has stated that the accused came from southern side. Rest of the description regarding the incident virtually tallies with the description of incident as testified by P.W.1. Only this much difference appears in the testimony of P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish and the testimony of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat that the accused came from northern side. Whereas, P.W.1 has stated that the accused came from southern side. Rest of the description regarding the incident virtually tallies with the description of incident as testified by P.W.1. As per (P.W.2) testimony when Nisar Ahmad asked for payment of bangles, the accused-appellant abused and resented the same. Nisar Ahmad asked the appellant not to abuse, whereupon appellant got agitated and gave 3-4 knife blows on stomach and neck of the deceased. Nisar Ahmad after covering 4-5 paces fell on the ground. He has also confirmed testimony of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat regarding 3-4 knife blows given by the accused appellant to the deceased. He has also verified facts regarding deceased being taken to the hospital for treatment after the incident. In his cross-examination no material in-consistency has surfaced regarding the manner and style of the incident. After cross-examination of both the eye-witnesses it comes out that the testimony is consistent, innocuous, reliable and inspiring confidence. 20. It is obvious that as per testimony of both the eye-witnesses of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat and P.W.2 Idrish, they were cleaning the shop as it was just opened around 8.30 a.m. when the accused riding his bicycle was passing by the shop, he was stopped by the deceased and demand for payment was made towards cost of bangles. The contention raised regarding non-presence of the above witnesses on the spot cannot be accepted, merely for the sake of argument, for the reason that the presence of both the witnesses on the spot is most natural, as the deceased alongwith these witnesses are relatives and they were cleaning the bangle shop and no such evidence or circumstances have been proved, which may refute the fact of existence of bangles’ shop where the incident took place. Cleaning of shop just after it was opened in the morning is most natural. 21. The contention has been raised regarding the incident having been caused at 4 a.m on 29.7.1984. Cleaning of shop just after it was opened in the morning is most natural. 21. The contention has been raised regarding the incident having been caused at 4 a.m on 29.7.1984. The very base of contention is the testimony of doctor witness P.W.3 Doctor G.S. Pandey, who in his examination-in-chief has given the very time of medical examination at 9 a.m., but on suggestion being made to him in cross-examination, he has submitted that possibility is that these injuries may be caused around 4 or 5 a.m. on 29.7.1984 and injury nos 2 and 3 may be caused by ‘farsa’. 22. In this context, perusal of testimony of doctor itself shows that the doctor witness in examination-in-chief has stated categorically fact that these injuries may be caused around 8.30 a.m. on 29.7.1984 and the injuries may be caused by knife. This specific testimony has not been challenged by the defence. In view of such specific unchallenged testimony, it is obvious that the doctor witness has himself verified the injuries to have been caused around 8.30 a.m. on 29.7.1984. This doctor witness, who made contradictory statement regarding the time of injury appears to be very clever because in para No. 4 of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he does not know as to when and where the deceased died; whereas the fact is that this witness himself has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased around 2.45 a.m., the very same day when he conducted medical examination of the then injured Nisar Ahmad. In this context, reference of injury report is relevant. 23. The very perusal of the injury report Exhibit Ka-2 indicates that in the opinion of doctor, the injuries were fresh and these injuries may be caused by sharp penetrating weapon or sharp edged weapon. For the sake of argument if the contention raised by the appellant regarding injuries being caused around 4 a.m on 29.7.1984 is assumed to be true, then how is it possible that at the time of medical examination of Nisar Ahmad-the deceased the injuries were found fresh. Not only this, injury No. 1 is said to be stabbed wound 3 cm x ½ cm (not probed) in right side of upper part of epigastrain profuse bleeding, margins are sharp and clean. Not only this, injury No. 1 is said to be stabbed wound 3 cm x ½ cm (not probed) in right side of upper part of epigastrain profuse bleeding, margins are sharp and clean. Injury No. 2 incised wounds 2-1/2 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep in right side palate just above neck at middle, fresh bleeding. Injury No. 3 is incised wound ‘1 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep with fresh bleeding in between left angle of mouth and nostrils, margins sharp and clean. These injuries are self-speaking and enough to dispel any suggestion regarding the same be caused at 4 or 5 a.m. on 29.7.1984 for the reason that there was profuse bleeding as well as fresh bleeding in the injuries at the time of medical examination around 9.00 a.m. 24. In this view of the matter, it cannot be inferred that these injuries may have been caused around 4 a.m. on 29.7.1984, therefore, the contention so raised on behalf of the appellant is not accepted. It is worthy to mention that this doctor has also proved the post-mortem report and has proved that post-mortem examination was conducted by him at 2.45 p.m. on 29.7.1984 and the death of Nisar Ahmad took place in the hospital at 10.30 a.m. and information regarding the same was sent to the police station concerned and has proved the relevant papers as Exhibit Ka-4 and Ka-5. The testimony of P.W.3 Dr. G.S. Pandey is overwhelming on point of time and place of death of deceased Nisar Ahmad. It is established that the deceased died during course of his treatment in the hospital at 10.30 a.m. Then how can doctor witness P.W.3 Dr. G.S. Pandey say that he is unaware of the timing and place of death. Relevant to note that post-mortem examination report Exhibit Ka-3 also mentions three stitched wounds and the most relevant part of post-mortem examination report is the fact that it refers gases and digested food material in smaller intestine and large intestine was containing faecal matter and gases. Stomach has been shown to be empty. In the testimony of P.W.1 Shaikh Shadat and P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish, it appears that they used to go home to take meal in and around afternoon. Thus, the stomach was found to be empty. There is no semi-digested food in stomach or intestine. Stomach has been shown to be empty. In the testimony of P.W.1 Shaikh Shadat and P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish, it appears that they used to go home to take meal in and around afternoon. Thus, the stomach was found to be empty. There is no semi-digested food in stomach or intestine. Had the incident taken place around 4 a.m. on 29.7.1984 there may be possibility of presence of semi digested food in stomach or intestine. 25. In so far as the site plan Exhibit Ka-9 is concerned, it is obvious that Investigating Officer has taken sample of blood stained stone and sent the same for chemical examination. In this context, we may take note of chemical examination report Exhibit Ka-17, wherein, human blood was discovered on the piece of stone. This circumstance also proves presence of blood on the spot. 26. Contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that as per testimony of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat and P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish, knife blows were given to the deceased inside the shop, whereas on examination P.W.6 Kedar Nath Sharma, the I.O. has stated that he did not find any blood mark inside the bangle shop and on the basis of the same it has been claimed that incident never took place inside the shop as alleged by the prosecution witnesses and they were not present on the spot. But contention so raised is not sustainable in view of circumstances and testimony on record. Perusal of site plan Exhibit Ka-9 shows that from place ‘X’ blood stained stone was collected by the Investigating Officer and this place is outside shop but adjoining the shop and it has come in testimony of both the witnesses that the deceased came out of the shop fell down and blood was oozing out. If the Investigating Officer did not find any blood stains inside the shop, this by itself will not spell doubt on the happening of the incident because the blood was very much found in front of the shop where the deceased eventually fell down. 27. Further, defence has led testimony of D.W.1 Smt. Nisara Begum wife of Wali Mohammad. If the Investigating Officer did not find any blood stains inside the shop, this by itself will not spell doubt on the happening of the incident because the blood was very much found in front of the shop where the deceased eventually fell down. 27. Further, defence has led testimony of D.W.1 Smt. Nisara Begum wife of Wali Mohammad. She has been produced to prove the fact of litigation regarding some partition and has submitted that Khalid son of Bahadur trespassed in the house alongwith 4-5 unknown persons regarding which she moved complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba, who after making endorsement on it directed her to give the same to the concerned C.O. She went to the concerned C.O. and handed over the application to him. However, she filed photocopy of the same in Court, which was marked as Exhibit Kha-1. However, she has stated that she never made any complaint regarding aforesaid incident before any Court and she did not ask for copy of the original application from the C.O. 28. In so far as aforesaid testimony of D.W.1 Smt. Nisara Begum is concerned, it is obvious that it does not touch the periphery and circumference of the incident in question. Moreso, there is no reason as to why the real assailant will be shielded and the appellant will be named deliberately in the incident. The incident in question cannot be disbelieved, for the fact that the description of incident has been reasonably proved by the eye-witness account of P.W.1 Sheikh Sahadat and P.W.2 Mohammad Idrish and the description so given tallies materially with the medical examination of the deceased conducted at 9 a.m. on 29.7.1984 at Government Hospital, Mahoba. Therefore, the contention regarding ambiguous place of occurrence and non-presence of witnesses on the spot is not acceptable. 29. More so, it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that the eye-witnesses happen to be relatives of the victim if their testimony appears to be innocuous, consistent and befitting to the facts and circumstances of the case. 30. Further in a catena of cases, it has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court that testimony of the eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased cannot by itself be a ground to discard their testimony. 30. Further in a catena of cases, it has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court that testimony of the eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased cannot by itself be a ground to discard their testimony. It is the overall intrinsic value of their integral testimony which has got to be weighed; if upon such consideration the testimony is found to be clinching and truthful then testimony has got to be believed and acted upon. Their testimony is to be weighed pragmatically with caution. Here in the case in hand we have carefully examined the entirety of the matter and we have scrupulously appraised the testimony of the two eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 particularly regarding manner, style and nature of the actual incident alongwith their natural presence on the spot. We also get proper guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ; (2010 AIR SCW 3707) wherein also Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that being relatives by itself will not be suffice to throw away the entire testimony of the related witnesses. 31. Minor contradictions are bound to be there, but these contradictions cannot be treated to be either substantial or material to reduce authenticity of the innocuous eye-witness account of the incident. Therefore, minor contradictions as is the case in hand can be overlooked under the facts and circumstances of the case. On careful perusal of the testimony of the eye-witnesses as well as evidence, we find that the incident in question has been proved beyond reasonable doubt in its entirety and the learned lower Court has rightly recorded finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant with life imprisonment. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.12.1985 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1985, State v. Rais Alias Parwez Ansari, under Section 302 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 1984, Police Station-Mahoba, District-Hamirpur passed by the trial Court is upheld by us. 32. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and the various grounds urged in support of the appeal are devoid of force and the appeal is dismissed. 33. Appellant is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of his sentence, as imposed by the trial Court. 34. Let a copy of this order be certified to the Court concerned for information and necessary action.