JUDGMENT Shailendra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 27.8.1998 passed by Spl/ Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 821 of 1995 (State of U.P. v. Anant Ram), under Section 302 I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act PS-Sehramau South, District-Shahjahanpur, by which the appellant Anant Ram was convicted and sentenced to Life Imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and three years’ of rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 /25 Arms Act. 2. Heard Ms. Dr. Abida Syed, learned counsel for the appellant (Amicus Curiae) and Shri Ajit Ray, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that- the complainant Gajju Lal s/o Shobha Jatav, resident of village Pasgawan, PS- Sehramau South, District-Shahjahanpur filed written report Ex. Ka1 scribed by Shyamlal that the accused appellant Anant Ram s/o Sukkha, resident of village Pasgawan abducted Pakhi, the wife of his younger brother Daya Ram about four months ago. The accused and Pakhi returned back to the village after one month. After her return Pakhi remained with his younger brother Daya Ram but the accused Anant Ram used to meet Pakhi regularly and wanted to abduct Pakhi again but Pakhi resisted him. On 8.7.1995 at about 2: 30 p.m. when Pakhi was going to make natural call in the field of Matloob Khan, the accused Anant Ram caught her and stabbed her many times with a knife. At the time of incident, the complainant and his younger brother Daya Ram were sitting on chabutra under peepal tree belonging to Jagnay and on seeing the occurrence they rushed to save Pakhi and in the mean time Anant Ram also stabbed himself with the same knife and fell down on the ground. Pakhi died instantly. The knife was lying near Anant Ram. The body of Pakhi and injured Anant Ram were lying on the spot. Many people had gathered there. 4. On the basis of written report Ex. Ka1, the case was registered in crime no. 86/95 under Section 302 I.P.C. and Chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka16 was prepared. Rajpal Singh (P.W.5) took this investigation in his hand and reached on the spot with police force and started the process of inquest and the body of Pakhi was sent for post-mortem. He, with the help of constable Ram Kishan and Hazari Lal, prepared the concerned documents i.e. Panchayatnama Ex. Ka6, Photo Lash Ex. Ka16 was prepared. Rajpal Singh (P.W.5) took this investigation in his hand and reached on the spot with police force and started the process of inquest and the body of Pakhi was sent for post-mortem. He, with the help of constable Ram Kishan and Hazari Lal, prepared the concerned documents i.e. Panchayatnama Ex. Ka6, Photo Lash Ex. Ka7, Letter R.I. Ex. Ka8, Challan Lash Ex. Ka9, Letter C.M.O. Ex. Ka10, Seal sample Ex. Ka11. The witness also stated that he took the blood stained and simple earth from the spot and prepared a fard Ex. Ka12. He also prepared a fard of old steel kettle Ex. Ka13. He also took knife Ex.1 in possession, prepared fard Ex. Ka14. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. Ka15 where knife was found. This witness further deposed that he recorded the statement of accused on 9.7.1995. The witness also proved the Chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka16 prepared by H.M. Rajveer Singh and G.D. no.27 Ex. Ka17 dated 8.7.1995 which was written and signed by H.M. Rajveer Singh. He also proved the Chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka18 under Section 4 /25 Arms Act and G.D. no.6 as Ex. Ka19, and also proved the spot map where this incident occurred as Ex. Ka20. Witness also proved the knife Ex.1 and kettle Ex.2. After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka3) under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused. 5. Case of the accused was committed to the court of sessions for trial by Sri Ram Prakash Gupta, the then A.C.J.M.II, Shahjahanpur on 9.11.1995. 6. The accused was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 4/25 Arms Act by Sri R.K. Sharma, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur on 5.12.1995. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution has examined complainant Gajju Lal P.W.1, Daya Ram P.W.2, Dr. H.D. Kapoor P.W.3, S.I. Latoori Singh P.W.4, S.I. Rajpal Singh P.W.5 in support of its case. 8. P.W.4 S.I. Latoori Singh proved the charge-sheet Ex. Ka3 filed under Section 4 /25 Arms Act. He also proved the map Ex. Ka4 and further deposed that after taking the statement of accused and witnesses, he filed the charge-sheet Ex. Ka5 in crime no.87/95 under Section 4 /25 Arms Act against this accused. 9. The body of Pakhi was brought to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur in sealed cover where Dr. He also proved the map Ex. Ka4 and further deposed that after taking the statement of accused and witnesses, he filed the charge-sheet Ex. Ka5 in crime no.87/95 under Section 4 /25 Arms Act against this accused. 9. The body of Pakhi was brought to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur in sealed cover where Dr. H.D. Kapoor, M.O. District Hospital, Shahjahanpur conducted the post-mortem of the dead body on 9.7.1995 at 4: 00 p.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries on her body: - (a) Incised wound 4 cm. X 1 cm. x muscle deep on left side front of chest just below middle clavicle. (b) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x chest cavity deep on right side of chest 6 cm below the sterno clavicular angle. (c) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x abdominal cavity deep on the lateral side of stomach 20 cm. below axilla. (d) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. chest cavity deep 2 cm below injury no. 3. (e) Punctured wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. abdominal cavity deep upper from just below the xplisternum. (f) Punctured wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x abdominal cavity deep, above the umbilicus loops of intestines coming out from abdomen. (g) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x abdominal cavity deep, 2cm below injury no.6. (h) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on back of left forearm. (I) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. at the root of thumb of left hand. (j) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on ring finger and index finger of left hand. On examining internal parts of the body, Dr. found that both the lungs, left kidney and small intestine were punctured, spleen was badly raptured, peritoneum was raptured at some places and stated that in his opinion the death was caused as a result of ante mortem injuries and due to shock and haemorrhage. He proved the post-mortem report Ex. Ka2 and in his opinion deceased possibly had died on 8.7.1995 at 2: 30 p.m. 10. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated that Pakhi desired to elope with him. Pakhi used to meet him and wanted to stick with him. Her husband gave blows to him and also stabbed Pakhi due to which he became injured and Pakhi died. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated that Pakhi desired to elope with him. Pakhi used to meet him and wanted to stick with him. Her husband gave blows to him and also stabbed Pakhi due to which he became injured and Pakhi died. According to him husband of Pakhi and her brother-in-law have lodged false report in collusion with police. He also stated that Pakhi used to come to his house and her husband saw them and that is why her husband assaulted him and Pakhi. The accused did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down the guidelines for decision of an appeal from time to time. The Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded the following principles in [Padam Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (1) SCC 621 ] which is quoted here : “it is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.” 12. Further guidelines have been issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of [Rama & others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002 (4) SCC 571 ] which is as under: “It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial court alone especially when the appeal has been already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted under law.” 13. The guidelines have also been issued by three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of [Majjal v. State of Haryana, 2013 (6) SCC 798 ] which is as under: “It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction. The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record. The High Court’s concurrence with the trial court’s view would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital evidence and important submissions which go to the root of the matter.” The aforesaid observations have been quoted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of [Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and Anr v. State of Gujarat reported in 2014 Cr.LJ 443]. 14. Keeping in view the propositions cited above, the Court is to scrutinize the evidence available before it and to draw the inference accordingly, bearing in mind the presumption of innocence of accused unless otherwise is established from evidence available on record without being influenced by the findings recorded by learned trial court. 15. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that no independent witness has been produced, F.I.R. is Ante-timed and it was prepared after intervention of police, blood stained, clothes and knife have not been sent to the chemical examiner or finger print expert. There was no animosity on behalf of the appellant to assault Pakhi, rather it was Daya Ram who had animosity against her, as she had fled away from his house or used to meet accused. 16. There was no animosity on behalf of the appellant to assault Pakhi, rather it was Daya Ram who had animosity against her, as she had fled away from his house or used to meet accused. 16. While refuting the statements of the counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. has argued that F.I.R. has been promptly lodged; both parties are closely related to each other, no previous enmity has been proved; no cross case was filed; accused was arrested on the spot with weapon; injury of the accused was a self-inflicted injury. 17. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are witnesses of fact. P.W.1 Gajju Lal, who is elder brother of Daya Ram (husband of deceased Pakhi) has stated that accused Anant Ram is son of his maternal brother and lived in the same village in his neighbourhood. Pakhi had fled with Anant Ram just four months before her murder and lived with Anant Ram for one month in Rudrapur. When he and his brother came to know about this fact, they went to Rudrapur and brought them back to village. According to this witness he and his brother Daya Ram were sitting under the peepal tree which is near the House of Jagnay (who is real uncle of accused Anant Ram) and deceased Pakhi had gone to the sugarcane field of Matloob Khan to make natural call which was just 100 yards away from peepal tree. As soon as she entered the field, appellant Anant Ram caught her and stabbed her several times with a knife then used same knife to inflict injury upon himself. He also fell down. They ran towards the spot and found Pakhi to be dead. Anant Ram was alive. Many villagers had gathered on the spot. He alone went to police station and got report Ex. Ka1 scribed by Shyam Lal. 18. P.W.2 Daya Ram has also corroborated him and has stated that Pakhi was his wife and till the police reached on the spot, the accused Anant Ram and knife were lying on the spot. The witness was put to a lengthy cross examination. Nothing could be extracted from the witness which may have the adverse impact on the veracity of his statement. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae Dr. Abida Syed argued that witnesses are related to each other being real brothers and no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. The witness was put to a lengthy cross examination. Nothing could be extracted from the witness which may have the adverse impact on the veracity of his statement. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae Dr. Abida Syed argued that witnesses are related to each other being real brothers and no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. Jagnay whose house is near the Peepal tree where P.W.1 and P.W.2 are said to have been sitting, has not been produced. As the name of Jagnay is not mentioned, in F.I.R. or in the statements of witnesses. Hence, he cannot be treated as witness of fact. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that many villagers had assembled on the spot but they did not disclose the name of any person. It was the bounden duty of the accused side to extract names of witnesses who were present on the spot or reached there afterwards. It is noteworthy that Jagnay has been discharged by the prosecution as he had colluded with accused Anant Ram. Charge-sheet shows the name of witnesses Monish, Guddu, Sewa Ram, Pratap but they are not witnesses of fact. These witnesses were not produced. In the case of [Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC pg 433] it has been held as under : - “The testimony of an eyewitness, if found truthful, cannot be discarded merely because the eyewitness was a relative of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly unreliable, the court may discard the statement of such witness, but where the witness is wholly reliable or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable (if his statement is fully corroborated and supported by other ocular and documentary evidence), the court may base its judgment on the statement of such witness. Of course, in the latter category of witnesses, the court has to be more cautious and see if the statement of the witness is corroborated. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC 367 , Brathi v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519 and Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of T.N., (2012) 10 SCC 451 .” 20. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC 367 , Brathi v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519 and Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of T.N., (2012) 10 SCC 451 .” 20. From the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time it can safely be deduced that the testimony of related or interested witness as a whole cannot be discarded but, a heavy duty is cast upon the Courts to appreciate the evidence with utmost care and caution. 21. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the entire records carefully. 22. The testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are on high quality. Both have narrated the entire episode in great detail and in spite of being subjected to lengthy cross-examination, they have depicted the prosecution story in a trustworthy manner. In our opinion their testimonies are natural, direct, cogent, credible, and convincing and in accordance with the normal human conduct. 23. The learned counsel for appellant (Amicus Curiae) has argued that both witnesses of facts are partisan and relative witnesses. It is true that witnesses of course are partisan and related witnesses but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that witnesses of facts are lying or economical with truth. There is complete consistency and coherence in the testimonies of both witnesses on the material points. No material contradiction on any vital point of prosecution version has been pointed out in a reference to their deposition which may impair the evidentiary value of these witnesses. Fact of the matter is that it is much more difficult for partisan witnesses to spare real culprit of commission of grave crime like murder and to falsely implicate someone with whom they have very close relations. The appellant was not at all in inimical terms with the complainant side and he is close nephew of these two witnesses. Question arises why would they falsely implicate the appellant. On critical appraisal and assessment of the testimonies of witnesses of fact, we are of the considered view that their evidence is credible, reliable and trust worthy. There is no legal impediment in placing reliance upon these witnesses and their evidence falls within the purview of wholly reliable. 24. Question arises why would they falsely implicate the appellant. On critical appraisal and assessment of the testimonies of witnesses of fact, we are of the considered view that their evidence is credible, reliable and trust worthy. There is no legal impediment in placing reliance upon these witnesses and their evidence falls within the purview of wholly reliable. 24. The place of occurrence could not be challenged as the accused himself, in his statement of 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that husband of Pakhi Daya Ram stabbed him and Pakhi in particular place. 25. It has been argued by learned Amicus Curiae that F.I.R. is Ante-timed and prepared after consultation. The incident is said to to have taken place on 8.7.1995 at 2: 30 p.m. and F.I.R. was lodged at 4: 45 p.m. while the police station is at the distance of 3 k.m. Hence, there is no question of delay in F.I.R. Inquest report Ex. Ka6 reveals that on the top of the first page crime no. 86/95, Section 302 I.P.C. are written and likewise on the last page, list of papers sent to C.M.O. for perusal at the time of conducting post-mortem is mentioned and on serial no.5, copy of Chick report and copy of G.D. are mentioned. All this shows that at the time of preparing inquest report, F.I.R was in existence. Thus, it can’t be held that F.I.R. was Ante-timed or not in existence at that time, or it was prepared after any consultation with the police. Shyam Lal the scribe of written report has not been produced by the prosecution, lest it cannot be said that it is fatal to the prosecution. As it is a case of direct evidence and the complainant has already been examined as P.W.1. and has proved the written report Ex. Ka1 in accordance with law. In [Motilal v. State of U.P. 2009 (7) Supreme 632 ] Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that non-examination of scribe of F.I.R. is not necessarily fatal to prosecution and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution if the scribe was not an eye-witness to the incident and the complainant/ informant had proved the execution of the F.I.R. by examining himself. It is noteworthy that no material contradiction or glaring omission regarding F.I.R. is found in the statement of P.W.1. 26. It is noteworthy that no material contradiction or glaring omission regarding F.I.R. is found in the statement of P.W.1. 26. The learned Amicus Curiae has also argued that blood stained knife, clothes and finger print of accused on knife have not been sent to chemical examiner or finger print expert. All this has created doubt about the prosecution story. We do not find any force in this argument. As already said that it is a case of direct evidence. Anant Ram accused was arrested on the spot with weapon used by him. Witnesses of fact have direct relation with the accused and the recovered knife on the spot has been produced. Such witnesses have no animus against the appellant for giving false evidence. Evidence of eye-witness is trustworthy and credible. It is true that there are some latches on the part of the investigating officer but it can’t be said that the accused persons have been prejudiced by it, only due to latches on the part of investigating officer, appellants cannot be acquitted if case is otherwise fully proved. In [Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC 654 ] it was held that non sending of weapons of assault, cartridges and pellets to ballistic experts for examination would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution if the ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In [Achoraporambath Pradeepan v. State of Kerala 2007 (57) ACC 293 (SC)]. It was held that every irregularity or deficiency in investigation by I.O. need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. The only requirement is use of extra caution in evaluation of evidence. A defective investigation cannot be fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In that circumstance the aforesaid contention of the learned Amicus Curiae has no force and is of no avail to accused. 27. As far as motive is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that it was Daya Ram who had animus to kill his wife Pakhi and Anant Ram (accused) because Daya Ram was of age 45-50 at that time, Pakhi was of age 25 and Anant Ram was of age 30. 27. As far as motive is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that it was Daya Ram who had animus to kill his wife Pakhi and Anant Ram (accused) because Daya Ram was of age 45-50 at that time, Pakhi was of age 25 and Anant Ram was of age 30. This Pakhi and accused had illicit relations with each other but Daya Ram had purchased Pakhi from Kanpur as per statement of P.W.1 and she had already eloped with accused Anant Ram once and wanted to flee with accused again. P.W.2 has also stated that it was within his knowledge that Pakhi also met the accused on the day of incident. Case of Amicus Curiae is that on account of this apprehension, husband killed Pakhi and injured appellant. We are afraid, this argument is not supported by any material on record and therefore cannot be accepted. 28. As regards the argument that why Daya Ram, husband of deceased Pakhi did not lodge F.I.R. it is immaterial that who informed the police. Any person can lodge F.I.R. Dead body of Pakhi was also lying on the spot. Perhaps Daya Ram did not want to leave that place. It may also be material to note that if Daya Ram had caused injury to Anant Ram, naturally he would have caused serious injuries to the accused who was involved in abducting his wife and also had illicit terms with her. Certainly, he would have caused grievous hurt to accused. It has also been argued on behalf of the learned A.G.A. that if Daya Ram had any grudge with his wife, then Daya Ram and his brother could have killed Pakhi in the night which would have been far easier for them. Moreover, the accused was arrested by the police on the spot with knife. 29. It has been argued by learned A.G.A. that it was the chivalrous conduct on the part of Daya Ram that he took his wife despite her elopement and continuous meetings with Anant Ram. Daya Ram did not have any inimical terms with his wife. No complaint had been lodged anywhere by Pakhi that Daya Ram had ever illtreated her. 29. It has been argued by learned A.G.A. that it was the chivalrous conduct on the part of Daya Ram that he took his wife despite her elopement and continuous meetings with Anant Ram. Daya Ram did not have any inimical terms with his wife. No complaint had been lodged anywhere by Pakhi that Daya Ram had ever illtreated her. The deceased was a young lady of 25 years and Daya Ram was of age 45-50 years while the accused Anant Ram was of age 30 years and injuries of Pakhi reflects that seven severe injuries were caused on vital parts of the body. It was perhaps not possible for Daya Ram to cause so many stabb wounds in such short span. We doubt Daya Ram could have attacked both Pakhi and accused simultaneously. 30. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 31. After critical appraisal of the prosecution case and the evidence available on record we are of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has committed, no illegality or irregularity in recording the findings of conviction against the accused appellant Anant Ram and the findings recorded by the lower court below are reasoned one. As such there appears no justification for interference by this court in the impugned judgment and order. 32. Learned counsel for appellant (Amicus Curiae) had cited Sardar Mohan Singh and others v. State of U.P. 2011 (74) ACC 317 Allahabad High Court- Lucknow Bench to claim the remission of sentence. It was urged that the appellant is in jail for last more than 21 years without taking into consideration the remission and there is no previous conviction of the accused so the matter of the appellant be sent to the State Government for remission of sentence under Section 2 Rule 4 of U.P. Prisoners Act. It is the appellant who himself has to forward his case for remission of rest part of his punishment to the State Government. We are not inclined to refer the matter to the State Government. It is the State Government which is competent for taking proper decision in the matter of remission for the remaining part of the sentence under Section 4 32 and 433 A Cr.P.C. 33. We are not inclined to refer the matter to the State Government. It is the State Government which is competent for taking proper decision in the matter of remission for the remaining part of the sentence under Section 4 32 and 433 A Cr.P.C. 33. In view of the aforesaid discussions, judgment and order dated 27.08.1998 passed by the court below convicting and sentencing the accused/ appellant Anant Ram is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 34. Accused appellant Anant Ram, who is in jail custody, be informed accordingly to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 35. Let the lower court’s record be sent to the court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment and order for necessary compliance and concerned court shall report compliance within one month thereafter.