JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.9.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 28 of 1983, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Briefly narrated, the prosecution story is that Khalak and Bhaggi were residents of the village Chandera, P.S. Narahat. On 3.7.1982 Balkishan son of Khalak aged about 8 years and Bhaiyan son of Bhaggi Yadav aged about 9 years had come to blows on Jamun fruits. Both of them had complained to their mothers about the incident, with the result there were verbal altercations between two ladies. Buddhe, the complainant, had intervened, with the result that the matter had come to an end but it appears that the incident had created bad blood among themselves. On the next day at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning Khalak father of one of the boys and brother of Buddhe complainant was coming towards his house after attending the nature’s call. Lachhman, brother of the other boy, and son of Bhaggi came with lathi and near the field of Uddet started assaulting Khalak with the result Khalak fell down and raised alarm for help. Buddhe reached on the spot and tried to stop. The villagers also collected there. Accused Lachhman threatened to assault Buddhe, but due to presence of villagers he managed to escape towards west. It also transpires that when the injured Khalak was being taken to Police Station (Thana) and was near the place of Khargaun Deota they met Hardas and Bharose who were apprised about the incident and by that time at about 6.30 a.m. all seven accused, namely, Lachhman, Kailash, Kashi Ram, Hanumat, Pratap, Viran and Sudde came armed with lathis and tried to obstruct the complainant from going to police station. It also transpires that Hardas and Bharose had persuaded the accused to give them the weapons (lathis). All the accused went away. Out of fear the complainant alongwith his injured brother lying on cot returned to his house and on being serious condition of the injured the complainant alongwith Hari Ram, Budde, Jumuna and Rajendra Singh (Pradhan) again started for the police station (Thana) at about 9.00 a.m. But, Khalak, however, succumbed to his injuries. 3. Written report Ex.Ka-1 was lodged at the Police Station. Harihar Singh, Head Constable scribed the chek Ex.Ka-13. 3. Written report Ex.Ka-1 was lodged at the Police Station. Harihar Singh, Head Constable scribed the chek Ex.Ka-13. On the basis of written report Ex.Ka-1 the case was registered in the G.D. Ex.Ka-14. Sri Madan Lal Yadav P.W.7, who was present at the time when the report was lodged, took up the investigation and recorded the statement of Head Constable Harihar Singh. He visited the site and prepared the inquest report Ex.Ka-3, challan lash Ex.Ka-4, photo lash Ex.Ka-5, report to R.I. Ex.Ka-6, letter to C.M.O. Ex.Ka-7, report for return of clothes Ex.Ka-8 and specimen seal Ex.Ka-9. Thereafter, the dead body was sealed and was sent through Constable Shiv Kumar and others with relevant papers for the purpose of conducting post-mortem. The cot was given in the supurdgi of the complainant and the fard thereof was prepared as Ex.Ka-2. Simple and blood stained earth Exs.III and IV were collected from the spot and fard Ex.Ka-18 was prepared. Hardas and Bharose handed over one ballam Ex.VII and six lathis Exs.VIII to XIII which were snatched from the accused and were sealed, the fard thereof Ex.Ka-19 was prepared. Thereafter, site plan Ex.Ka-20 was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The place of incident was visited and its map Ex.Ka-21 was prepared. From the place of occurrence blood stained and simple earth soil were taken and exhibited as Exs.V and VI and the fard thereof was prepared which is Ex.Ka-22 on record. It also transpires that on the next day Sudde was arrested. Thereafter statements of the other witnesses were recorded and on 11.7.1982 accused Lachhman, Kailash, Hanumat, Pratap and Viran were arrested. Accused Kashiram surrendered in the Court and after completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against all the seven accused which is Ex.Ka-23 on record. 4. P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Agarwal conducted the post-mortem examination on 5.7.1982 at 4.00 p.m. in the District Hospital. The age of the victim was opined to be 40 years and the period of death was mentioned as 1-1/2 days. Rigor mortis had passed off. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased : “(1) Lacerated wound on the right side of scalp at the vault placed obliquely at parietal region, 8 cms x ½ cm x scalp deep. On internal examination, there was haemotoma underlying the injury and laceration of margins. Rigor mortis had passed off. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased : “(1) Lacerated wound on the right side of scalp at the vault placed obliquely at parietal region, 8 cms x ½ cm x scalp deep. On internal examination, there was haemotoma underlying the injury and laceration of margins. There was fracture of middle around fossa on right side. (2) Lacerated wound on right forearm dorsal aspect 1 cm x 1 cm just above the wrist joint. (3) Lacerated wound on left upper arm lower 1/3 on dorsolateral aspect.” 5. According to the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Agarwal proved the post-mortem report which is Ex.Ka-12 on record. 6. The accused were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Court of session framed charge against Lachhman under Section 302 I.P.C. while the other accused were charged under Section 143 I.P.C. The accused pleaded guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of the prosecution case. The witnesses examined are P.W.1 Jamuna an eye-witness, P.W.2 Baldoo another eye-witness, P.W.3 Buddhe the complainant who is also an eye-witness, P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Agarwal who conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, Rajendra Singh scriber of the written report -P.W.5, Harihar Singh P.W.6 scriber of the chek. P.W.7 Sri Madanlal Yadav Investigating Officer. Apart from all these oral testimony the prosecution placed reliance on 26 documents marked Ex.Ka-1 to Ka26 and on 13 material exhibits marked as Exs.I to XIII. 8. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. Accused Lachhman asserted that on the initiative of his father a police chowki was created in the village, as a result of which the villagers felt annoyed and secondly he stated that he did not oblige the villagers who wanted him to cast the vote in favour of Rajendra Singh. Due to these reasons he was falsely implicated. It is important to mention here that while rest of all six charged accused whose statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded found not guilty under Section 143 I.P.C. Therefore, they have been acquitted. The accused were called upon to enter into defence. Due to these reasons he was falsely implicated. It is important to mention here that while rest of all six charged accused whose statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded found not guilty under Section 143 I.P.C. Therefore, they have been acquitted. The accused were called upon to enter into defence. D.W.1 Bharose was examined as a defence witness and in support of the defence reliance was placed on one document marked as Ex.Kha-1. After conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Court found accused Lachhman guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and all accused, namely, Kailash, Kashi Ram, Hanumat, Pratap, Viran, Sudde and Lachhman were not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 143 I.P.C. and as such they were acquitted from the charge. 9. We have heard Sri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 10. Before appreciating the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that this case involves two incident. The first incident took place on 4.7.1982 at about 6.00 a.m. early morning in the plot of Uddet in village Chandera, Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur. In this incident only accused Lachhman was involved. The other incident, as per prosecution version, involved all the seven accused. It was said that at about 6.30 a.m. when the injured was being taken to the police station, the above said seven accused person reached near Khargaun Deota and tried to stop the complainant from lodging of the FIR. It is alleged that at that time these accused persons were said to be armed with weapons. Two persons Hardas and Bharose were said to have persuaded them to not to obstruct or block the way. It is also said that they have taken the weapons from the accused persons and thereafter these accused persons were said to have returned without weapons. 11. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that on appraisement of the evidence tendered by the prosecution before the Session Judge, accused-appellant Lachhman was found guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. 11. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that on appraisement of the evidence tendered by the prosecution before the Session Judge, accused-appellant Lachhman was found guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. For the second incident all the seven accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 143 I.P.C. 12. Learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial, on the basis of evidence concluded that first incident against Lachhman was found to be credible, consistent, unimpeachable and trustworthy. It was also concluded that the second incident against all the seven accused have not been proved by cogent and credible evidence. Giving the benefit of doubt all the seven accused were acquitted from the charge under Section 143 I.P.C., but against the accused Lachhman the commission of offence with regard to murder of Khalak found to be proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly accused Lachhman was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant firstly argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Court below is against the weight of evidence on record. The ocular testimonies of all the witnesses of fact are not believable as they are closely related and not a single independent witness has come to support the prosecution case. The second point which has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused is that there are material contradictions on the number of injuries. According to the written report, statements collected during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the inquest report, number of injuries found to be five. Even in evidence led by the prosecution witnesses deposed five injuries to the victim whereas the post-mortem report gave three injuries as ante-mortem injuries. Under these circumstances the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently asserted that the prosecution witnesses No. 1 to 3 have not really seen the incident. Another contradiction which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the place from where P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that they have witnessed the incident assaulting the deceased by accused Lachhman and further stated that the recovery of lathi from the accused Lachhman did not contain the human blood which is exhibited from the recovery memo Ex.Ka19. 14. 14. Third point which has been submitted is about the place of occurrence. According to the first version, the incident had taken place in the plot of Uddet. But according to witness Jamuna the incident had taken place by the side of the passage on the Merh belonging to Uddet which has been shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan Ex.Ka-21. P.W.2 Baldoo stated that the incident had taken place in the north Merh of plot of Uddet, but third witness Buddhe P.W.3 stated that the incident had taken place in the western plot of Uddet. These witnesses are at variance on the point of place of occurrence. 15. Fourthly argued that the prosecution had come with a very weak motive as it was unimaginable and improbable that on a minor incident a day earlier between the two children, the father would have felt so aggrieved that he would have killed the man to take the revenge. 16. Fifthly contended that there is delay in FIR. It is futher contended that two incidents have been mentioned in the FIR. The second version of the prosecution found to be not proved which resulted into the acquittal of the accused under Section 143 I.P.C. But on the same testimony of the witnesses of fact conviction of accused Lachhman has been recorded by the Trial Judge, so learned counsel vehemently argued that the witnesses are found to be not believable. 17. On this point, it has also been contended that the accused have been falsely implicated at the instance of Rajendra Singh, Pradhan, of the village. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel of the appellant lastly argued that the case has not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused Lachhman and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 19. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is based on cogent, consistent and credible evidence. The prosecution witnesses specially P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been cross-examined at length, but nothing has come out from their testimony to shake the first version stated in the FIR which could result to discredit their oral testimony. The prosecution witnesses specially P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been cross-examined at length, but nothing has come out from their testimony to shake the first version stated in the FIR which could result to discredit their oral testimony. It is further submitted that the contradictions which have been argued by the learned counsel are not of serious nature but they are minor and trivial which do not affect the core of the prosecution version. It is further argued that the judgment of the trial Court is well discussed and well reasoned. It is lastly argued that the arguments placed by the defence counsel has no substance and deserves to be rejected. 20. Before touching the merit of this appeal we would like to mention certain relevant legal proposition with regard to the appraisement of the testimony of the witnesses. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that “proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula since that is impossible. However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion.” 21. In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has classified witnesses into three categories, (1) Wholly reliable (2) Wholly unreliable (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Further observed that in this category of witnesses the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. 22. On the touchstone of the above stated legal preposition we have given our thoughtful considerations to the oral and documentary evidence on record and the contentions raised by both the parties. 23. Perusal of the FIR reveals that incident is stated to be at 6.00 a.m. early in the morning on 4.7.1982. On the basis of the written report, FIR was registered at about 11.00 a.m. on the very same day, i.e. 4.7.1982 and the distance of the police station from the place of incident is stated to be 18 kms. In the written report itself it is mentioned that after the incident when complainant tried to lodge the FIR to the police station the accused persons blocked the route and threatened to face the dire consequences. Due to fear complainant could not lodge the FIR. In the written report itself it is mentioned that after the incident when complainant tried to lodge the FIR to the police station the accused persons blocked the route and threatened to face the dire consequences. Due to fear complainant could not lodge the FIR. When the condition of the victim seriously deteriorated, then with the help of other persons FIR was lodged on the very same day at 11.00 a.m. The distance is stated to be 18 kms from the place of incident. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case there cannot be said to be any delay in lodging of FIR. 24. We would like to mention the important and relevant legal preposition with regard to the lodging of an FIR and related testimony. It is settled legal proposition that the main purpose of FIR is to satisfy the police officer regarding commission of cognizable offence and to conduct investigation in accordance with law. The primary object is to set the criminal law into motion and it may not be possible to give every minute detail with unmistakable precision in FIR. Further we would like to mention that the FIR itself is not a proof of case but a piece of evidence which can be used for corroborating the case of prosecution. It is established law that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all facts and circumstances on which prosecution relies. It has only to state the basic case. 25. In Nanha v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 JIC 362 (Allahabad), Allahabad High Court held that if the identity of accused, time, place and manner of assault is proved by the statement of eye-witnesses and FIR has also been lodged promptly, erasing any doubt of manipulation in it and if the contradictions pointed out by the learned defence counsel are not material then it is not fatal to the prosecution case. 26. In Sukhdeep Singh @ Deep Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2010) 2 SCC (Criminal) 997, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the testimony of interested witnesses becomes more reliable as it would be difficult to accept that they would leave out the true assailants and to involve some other persons. 27. 26. In Sukhdeep Singh @ Deep Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2010) 2 SCC (Criminal) 997, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the testimony of interested witnesses becomes more reliable as it would be difficult to accept that they would leave out the true assailants and to involve some other persons. 27. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others, (2011) 1 SCC (Criminal) 381, Hon’ble the Apex Court held that while appreciating the evidence, the Court should read the evidence as a whole (so read), if it appears to have a ring of truth then discrepancies, inconsistencies, infirmities or deficiencies of minor nature not touching the core of case cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence. Further, it has been held that Court should sift the evidence to separate falsehood from truth. It should not adopt a hyper technical approach. 28. In Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (1) SCC (Criminal), Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishment or discrepancy or improvement in statements of witnesses which do not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made basis for doubting the case of prosecution. 29. On the basis of above said legal proposition and under the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, we find no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the accused with regard to the lodging of an FIR and delay, if any. 30. So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the witnesses being closely related and no independent witness has come to support the prosecution case, we would like to mention that it is the settled legal proposition that evidence of undisputedly interested witnesses or related witnesses cannot be discarded outright on that very sole ground. It is also established law that conviction can be based upon the evidence of witnesses related to the deceased without corroboration, if their testimonies are found to be trustworthy then there does not seem to be any valid or cogent reason for not acting upon their evidence. Because of their relationship, they cannot be considered to be inclined to spare the real culprits or falsely involve the accused persons. Because of their relationship, they cannot be considered to be inclined to spare the real culprits or falsely involve the accused persons. Applying the above legal proposition, we find in the present case that at the time of incident of murder no such person except these three prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 had reached the place of occurrence. The incident happened in the early hours of the morning. There seems to be no marked movement. Therefore, the question of withholding independent witnesses from the side of the prosecution does not arise. Perusal of the lower Court records reveals that there is no doubt about the relationship between the prosecution witnesses. As per their statements all the three witnesses were closely related. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were nephews of P.W.3 and the victim, but as per the requirement of the law, their testimony had required to be carefully scrutinized in order to see whether they are truthful, reliable and trustworthy witnesses as their presence at the site is very natural. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the presence of the witnesses, we have carefully examined the statement given before the trial Court. P.W.1 Jamuna stated in his statement that at the time of the incident he was present near the well and another witness Baldoo was also standing nearby (Baldoo kulla kar raha tha) from that place. Both the witnesses heard the cry of victim. P.W.2 Baldoo also supported the statement of P.W.1 Jamuna and categorically stated that he was present near the well of Buddhe and he also admitted the presence of Jamuna at that very place. P.W.3 Buddhe also stated that at the time of incident he was present in his Kachhwara. It has also come in the evidence that the said Kachhwara where the witness P.W.3 Buddhe was present and the well where the other two witnesses, namely, P.W.2 and P.W.3 Jamuna and Baldoo were present are adjacent to it and it has been categorically and specifically stated by these witnesses that on hearing the cries of the victim firstly Buddhe rushed towards the place of occurrence accompanying by the other two witnesses. Although, these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, but place and presence of all the three witnesses and manner and mode of assault by accused Lachhman with lathi on the body of the victim Khalak could not be materially contradicted. Although, these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, but place and presence of all the three witnesses and manner and mode of assault by accused Lachhman with lathi on the body of the victim Khalak could not be materially contradicted. Their presence at the site was found to be very much natural. Consequently, the ocular version of these witnesses inspires confidence. So the point raised by the learned counsel for the accused about their presence and non-production of the independent witnesses and production of only the related and interested witnesses does not create any shadow of doubt over the incident. Therefore, we hold that the argument raised by the accused counsel on this score has no substance. 31. The next point of contradiction raised by the learned counsel for the defence is with regard to the number of injuries. He contended that perusal of the written report, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the inquest report number of injuries are shown to be five. Even in evidence five injuries were suggested to the victim. The post-mortem report, however, mentions three injuries as ante-mortem injuries. Under these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been challenged and asserted that they have not seen the incident. Medical and oral version are inconsistent and witnesses are not believable. 32. In rebuttal, learned A.G.A. has contended that these witnesses perhaps reached at the time when Lachhman accused was assaulting with lathi. There might have been earlier blows. The injuries mentioned in the written report and the inquest report are practically similar. It is further submitted that the victim was wearing clothes which was found to be blood stained. It appears that swelling on the right knee and the swelling on the left temple region was not marked by the Medical Officer who had examined the dead body after 1 ½ days of the death. It was just possible that those swellings might have subsided or may not have been marked which could invite the attention on this point. 33. On the point of injury, we have perused the materiel produced before the trial Court and the statement of all the witnesses. P.W.1 stated that the blood was oozing from the head injury and the injury found on the hand and in cross-examination page 6 stated about five injuries. 33. On the point of injury, we have perused the materiel produced before the trial Court and the statement of all the witnesses. P.W.1 stated that the blood was oozing from the head injury and the injury found on the hand and in cross-examination page 6 stated about five injuries. At page 7 injury on head, right elbow, left temple region, right knee and one at buttock. Likewise P.W.6 Baldoo also on this point in cross-examination at page 6 stated that when he reached at the place of incident he saw three lathi blows over the victim caused by the accused Lachhman; one on head, one on temple region and one at hand. He also stated about five injuries, two injuries were on knee and elbow region and three injuries on the upper side of the body. P.W.3 Buddhe complainant-informant also stated in cross-examination page 10 that he saw three blows of lathi, one on the head and two on both elbows of the victim. He saw the injuries of five lathi blows, one on knee and another on buttock. Perusal of the inquest report Ex.Ka3 reveals that it mentions injury No. 2 as a swelling on left parietal region and injury No. 3 as a swelling on right knee. Rest three injuries, injury Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have mention of blood injuries. Post-mortem examination Ex.Ka-12 mentions three ante-mortem injuries which were lacerated wounds resulting sharp blood injuries. So it can be very safely concluded that it appears that the swelling on the right knee and the swelling on the left temple region did not mark by the Medical Officer who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Agarwal who conducted the post-mortem examination opined that the period of the death was about 1 ½ days and rigor mortis had passed off and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Since the injuries of the swelling which was two in number have not been marked by Medical Officer, it was just possible that these swelling might have subsided or may not have been marked at the time of post-mortem examination. The presence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 as a direct eye-witnesses at the place of incident could not be disbelieved on this very score. The presence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 as a direct eye-witnesses at the place of incident could not be disbelieved on this very score. We are of the opinion that the medical and ocular testimony is not conflicting with each other as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused. Therefore, the contention on this point appears to have no substance and we are of the view that on the basis of difference in noting the number of injuries the presence of three eye-witnesses cannot be ruled out. 34. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the accused is with regard to the place of occurrence. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the prosecution version that the incident took place in the plot of Uddet whereas P.W.1 stated that incident had taken place by the side of passage on the Merh belonging to Uddet. P.W.2 Baldoo has stated that incident had taken place in the north Merh of plot of Uddet. Budde the third eye-witness stated that the incident had taken place in the western plot of Uddet. 35. Considering the submissions on the point of place of occurrence, we have carefully examined the material available on record. The Investigating Officer has prepared the site plan Ex.Ka21. According to this point ‘A’ is the place where the incident took place. The site plan Ex.Ka-21 would state that there was no difference in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. We would further like to mention that at the time of assault it is but natural that the injured could not be presumed that he might not be running to save his life. In the case of assault it could not be a fixed point where one stands and bear the blows of the accused. He could be running in between the Merh and inside the field (khet). Therefore, the place of incident as has been stated by the prosecution witnesses is found to be the same, that is the plot of Uddet. The location has also been marked by the Investigating Officer where the incident took place and from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. The location has been fully established, moreso Investigating Officer has also collected the blood from the place of incident. The location has also been marked by the Investigating Officer where the incident took place and from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. The location has been fully established, moreso Investigating Officer has also collected the blood from the place of incident. Therefore, the minor difference on the place of incident, that is Merh or its close vicinity does not make any difference. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defence with regard to the shifting the place of incident. We further conclude that the place has been fixed by the prosecution witnesses and nothing has been elicited which could discredit prosecution witnesses inspite of the lengthy cross-examination on this point. 36. The next point which has been vehemently raised by the learned counsel for the defence is with regard to the motive behind the incident. He contended that the prosecution had come with a very weak motive. As per his contention it is not believable that on a minor incident between the two kids a day earlier, the father would have felt so aggrieved that he would have killed the father of another child. 37. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is not possible to read the mind of the guilty person, what was in the mind of the accused person as it differs from the person to person, children to children and circumstances to circumstance. It may work out in different ways and in different circumstances. A small incident may aggravate the mind of the accused in a specific situation, vis-a-vis a serious incident may not invoke such aggravation. 38. Having considered the submissions of both the sides we would like to mention established legal preposition on the point of motive. In Dhamidhar v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 6 SCJ 662 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it will not be correct to say as an absolute preposition of law that the existence of strong and definite motive is a sine qua non to hold an accused guilty of a criminal offence. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 6 ACJ 232, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is well-settled that the prosecution is not supposed to prove the motive when the prosecution relies on direct evidence that is evidence of eye-witnesses. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 6 ACJ 232, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is well-settled that the prosecution is not supposed to prove the motive when the prosecution relies on direct evidence that is evidence of eye-witnesses. In Munish Bhaver v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 464 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if evidence indicate proper and necessary motive then presumption against accused is established. In Sanullah Khan v. State of Bihar, 2013 (81) ACC 302, Hon’ble Apex Court held that proof of motive cannot be basis to disbelieve the prosecution case. In Alaqupandi v. State of Tamilnadu, 2012 Cr LJ 3363 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court held that existence of motive for committing the crime is not an absolute requirement of law, but it is always a relevant feature which will be taken into consideration by the Courts as it will render assistance to the Courts while analysing the prosecution evidence and determining the guilt of the accused. 39. On the touchstone of the above said legal preposition we have given our conscious thought on the material available on record. The genesis of the incident alleged in the FIR is altercation between the two child and thereafter reporting it to their families and it has been proved that before a day of the incident there happend to be small marpeet of the children of two families and with the result after reporting the matter to their mothers they have also exchanged hot words. It is also established that the accused Lachhman was not present at that time and he returned from the place of his employment in the evening of that day. It is a natural fact that on coming back to home the wife of Lachhman would have narrated the incident to her husband. Since the husband was not a witness of the incident, the genesis of the occurrence therefore could not be presumed to know the nature of the previous incident. He might have taken a serious view and acted accordingly. Now it can be safely concluded that it was not necessary for the prosecution to make out the motive rather it is very difficult to meet out as to what was the mental state of the accused. He might have taken a serious view and acted accordingly. Now it can be safely concluded that it was not necessary for the prosecution to make out the motive rather it is very difficult to meet out as to what was the mental state of the accused. Under the facts and circumstances as stated above the alleged motive could not be said to be unnatural or concocted rather it can be concluded that the previous incident appears to be the genesis of this incident by accused Lachhman. On the basis of the above legal proposition, on motive the prosecution case is based on direct ocular testimony and the ocular testimony is found to be unimpeachable and trustworthy. Due to aforesaid reasons the argument of the defence on motive or weak motive has no relevance. 40. The last point raised by the accused appellant that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case due to the alleged rivalry at the instance of Pradhan of the Village Rajendra Singh. On this point we would like to mention that it is an admitted fact that the village Pradhan Rajendra Singh had won the election against one Gore Lal who is said to be the near relative of the accused. It is also an admitted fact that the election was over one year earlier to the incident. It is relevant and important that Rajendra Singh has been produced as a prosecution witness No. 4. In his entire evidence nothing has been shown to make out a case of false implication of the accused. As already stated the election was over one year before the said incident, moreso Rajendra Singh, Pradhan, was a winning candidate. Mere relationship of the accused with Gore Lal, who was defeated in the election, cannot in ordinary course said to be the reason of false implication. Since the election had taken place one year back and nothing had happened in the intervening period which may suggest that Rajendra Singh was annoyed and had taken step to harm their adversaries or to help their supporter. So we are not in favour of this submission raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 41. Learned counsel for the appellant has further raised the point that the recovered lathi from the accused Lachhman does not have a mark of human blood. So we are not in favour of this submission raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 41. Learned counsel for the appellant has further raised the point that the recovered lathi from the accused Lachhman does not have a mark of human blood. This argument, in our mind, has no substance because it transpires from the entire prosecution story as well as evidence tendered in respect thereof that after the incident at about 6 a.m. when the complainant tried to lodge an FIR they were obstructed and the complainant alongwith the victim returned back to their house and thereafter when the condition of the victim was seriously deteriorated they again tried to lodge the FIR. At this juncture, accused Lachhman alongwith six others blocked the way and at that time as per prosecution story Bharose, Hardas were said to have snatched the lathis and ballam from those accused. There appears to be a gap between the incident and the recovery of the weapons. It is not the case of the prosecution that on the pointing out of the accused Lachhman the weapon lathi which was used in the assault had been recovered, rather there is a time gap between the incident and the recovery of lathi from accused Lachhman and that too for the second incident that is blocking of the road for going to lodge an FIR to the police station. 42. It is relevant to mention that perusal of Ex.Ka-19 which is fard of recovery of weapons (lathis and ballam) from all the seven accused involved in the second version of the prosecution story there is a mention of negative mark of blood only from the recovered lathi from accused Lachhman, but the fard is silent on the recovered lathis from other co-accused. It is not understandable why there is a negative mention of blood only on the recovered lathi from accused Lachhman and if at the time of recovery of lathis from other co-accused and the blood was not found on the lathis why it has not been described in the fard Ex.Ka-19. As we have already stated that the recovery of lathis has not been made on the pointing of the accused Lachhman rather the recovery relates to the second version of the prosecution story. So the argument on this point has no merit at all. Conclusion : 43. As we have already stated that the recovery of lathis has not been made on the pointing of the accused Lachhman rather the recovery relates to the second version of the prosecution story. So the argument on this point has no merit at all. Conclusion : 43. There is no delay in lodging the FIR. The written report contains all the material particulars of the prosecution story. The motive was set up and proved. P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the natural witnesses. Testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.3 inspires confidence. So far as the first incident of murder of Khalak is concerned, the prosecution witnesses are near relatives of the deceased hence could not be presumed to spare the real assailants. They only named the accused Lachhman whom they saw holding the weapon lathi and assaulting in order to kill the deceased. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony that is of a direct evidence. The prosecution has been successfully proved that accused Lachhman was responsible for the causing such injuries with an intention to kill the deceased Khalak which was sufficient to cause the death. Therefore, prosecution has proved beyond shadow of doubt the offence of murder against the accused Lachhman under Section 302 I.P.C. 44. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances as stated above, the legal proposition as above mentioned, we find no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity hence does not require any interference. 45. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 19.9.1983 in this appeal convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant Lachhman under Section 302 I.P.C. is confirmed and the appeal having no force is hereby dismissed. 46. Let a certified copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance.