JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR, J. The sole appellant stands convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for having caused homicidal death of his wife and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- having default clause by the judgment dated 05.08.2016 and order of conviction dated 08.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2008. 2. P.W.-8 being father of the victim lodged the fardbeyan on 23.01.2006 at 11.30 hrs at his house recorded by Sri R.N. Singh, A.S.I. Bhargama Police Station alleging that he got the deceased married with the appellant 4-5 years ago. They were living happily. A son was born to them. Only a month prior to the occurrence, the appellant along with his wife started living with the informant. A few days prior to the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place when the appellant insisted for disposal of the cycle kept at the Sasural which was objected by the deceased as well as the informant (P.W.-8). The prosecution case further is that on the night of 22.01.2006, the informant came from outside and his another daughter (P.W.-9) went into the room occupied by the victim for getting meal for her father. The food stuff was taken out by the victim which was served to the father of P.W.-9. Thereafter, the husband (appellant) and wife (victim) slept in the room with the small child whereas the other family members slept outside in the courtyard. The following morning, P.W.-9 went into the room of the victim to find that she was lying dead. A cloth was stuffed into her mouth and her neck was stabbed from right to left at two places by knife which was also lying nearby. Having seen the dead body of her sister, she raised alarm and attracted the other witnesses whereafter the Police was informed and the fardbeyan was recorded in the Courtyard of the house. The appellant and the small child of the victim were, however, not found around. The first investigating officer (not produced at the trial) made the preliminary investigation. The inquest report of the victim was prepared in presence of P.W.-2 who proved his signature there over (Ext.1/1). In course of investigation, the appellant was caught in the nearby bazaar called Jadia sleeping in a gumti with his small child. The dead body was dispatched for post mortem. The inquest report of the victim was prepared in presence of P.W.-2 who proved his signature there over (Ext.1/1). In course of investigation, the appellant was caught in the nearby bazaar called Jadia sleeping in a gumti with his small child. The dead body was dispatched for post mortem. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and having found the accusations true against the appellant, the charge-sheet was led whereon cognizance was taken and the case was later committed to the Court of Sessions. P.W.-10 is the second investigating officer of the case who submitted the charge-sheet. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the appellant which was read over and explained to him. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused-appellant was denial of the charge and his false implication. 3. In order to establish the accusations/charge levelled against the appellant, the prosecution, in all, examined 12 prosecution witnesses. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein again he pleaded his innocence. On careful scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court found cogent and reliable evidence available on record showing the guilt of the appellant and accordingly, he was held guilty and sentenced in the manner stated above. 4. We have heard Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Counsel for the appellant assisted by Md. Nafisuzzoha and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP for the State. 5. Before we notice rival pleadings made at the Bar, it is pertinent to note that the homicidal death of the victim is a fact which has not seriously been disputed by the defence. P.W.-12 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar) held autopsy on the cadaver on 23.01.2006 at the Sub-Divisional hospital, Araria where he was posted as the Medical Officer and found the following ante-mortem injuries:- “External I. One cut wound of size 2” X ½” X 1” on the anterior part of the neck. II. One cut wound size 1” X ½” X ½” on the outer part of the neck. III. one cut wound size 1” X ½” X ½” on the left side of the neck. IV. one cut wound of size 1” X ¼ ” X ¼ ” on the left side of the neck. II. One cut wound size 1” X ½” X ½” on the outer part of the neck. III. one cut wound size 1” X ½” X ½” on the left side of the neck. IV. one cut wound of size 1” X ¼ ” X ¼ ” on the left side of the neck. On dissection of neck-soft tissue (muscles) and carotid artery of left side and jugular vein of left side was cut. Internal injury: I. On opening the cranial thoracic and abdominal cavity, the corresponding viscera were intact and Above mentioned injury was cause by sharp cutting weapon.” The doctor has opined the cause of death due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of abovementioned injuries. Time elapsed since death and P.M. held was within 48 hrs.” 6. P.W.-12 has proved the post mortem report (Ext.-2). We do not find from the cross-examination made by the defence that any serious question was raised about the said finding. 7. The important question is now whether the appellant, as claimed by the prosecution, has committed the offence in the manner alleged. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has criticized the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant on several counts. He urged that no one had seen the actual assault on the deceased. There is no any eye witness to the actual killing of the deceased by knife. It is thus a case of circumstantial evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive. It is further contended that the other relevant circumstances have not been proved inasmuch as neither the knife allegedly containing blood stain mark was seized, scientific analyzed and the report placed before the Court. Seizure of the cloth allegedly containing blood stain mark is also not apparent from the record inasmuch as the seizure memo thereof has not been exhibited at the trial. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. which assumes relevance. Admittedly, upon reading the evidence, it is more than evident that the Police arrived at the house of the informant between 8.30-9.00 a.m. in the morning. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. which assumes relevance. Admittedly, upon reading the evidence, it is more than evident that the Police arrived at the house of the informant between 8.30-9.00 a.m. in the morning. If the prosecution so relies on the evidence of P.W.-1 (full brother of the informant), the Police took away the dead body of the victim at about 10.30 a.m. whereas the fardbeyan was lodged at 11.30 a.m. in the Courtyard of the informant. He also strenuously submitted that presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence on the relevant day or prior thereto has not been proved by any independent witness. No one has come forward to depose that he was actually seen in the village prior to the occurrence. Lastly, it has been submitted that all incriminating materials against the appellant were not put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Those incriminating materials cannot be used against the appellant. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the State submitted that the guilt of the appellant has been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The evidence of all relevant witnesses who are natural witness is to the effect that the husband was staying with his wife at Sasural few weeks prior to the occurrence. They have consistently stated about his presence with the victim during the relevant night inside the room. The chain of circumstances proved at the trial is complete and conclusively demonstrate only and only the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that non-examination of the first investigating officer has not prejudiced the case of the defence. 10. We have examined the evidence of the prosecution carefully. We find that PWs.8, 3, 7 and 9 are father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased and they reside together in one house. They all were present in their house in the night of occurrence. The informant after taking supper slept on Machan at his Darwaja. The deceased along with her husband and child slept in their room and the remaining family members in another room. In fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on the following morning when his daughter PW-9 entered into the room of the deceased to awake her she found the deceased lying on a Chowki and the appellant and his child were not present in the room. In fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on the following morning when his daughter PW-9 entered into the room of the deceased to awake her she found the deceased lying on a Chowki and the appellant and his child were not present in the room. She raised alarm whereupon family members and the neighbours reached and saw the deceased lying on Chawki having received stabbed wounds on her neck. There was blood also on her clothes and bed. A blood stained knife was also found near the dead body. The evidence of all the four family members PWs.8, 3, 7 and 9 are consistent and they all in one tone have stated that the appellant after stabbing the deceased escaped with the child. 11. PW-1 is brother of informant having his house contiguous to the house of informant. He reached there and saw the deceased having stabbed injuries on neck. He has stated that after committing murder, the appellant escaped from there. The police prepared inquest report and seized knife in his presence. This witness put his LTI on seizure list. PW-4 is cousin of informant and PW-5 is the neighbour of the informant having their house contiguous to the house of informant. These two also reached very quickly at the house of the informant and saw the deceased having stabbed wound on her neck. They found profused bleeding at the place of occurrence and a knife was also found near the dead body. Both these two witnesses have stated that the appellant (husband) was residing with the deceased and her child at the house of the informant. PW-6 is resident of adjoining village. He has also stated at para-1 that the appellant was residing at the house of informant with the deceased (wife). He reached at the place of occurrence and saw the deceased having injury on her neck. All the aforesaid witnesses have stated that the appellant was residing with the deceased at the house of informant and after stabbing her wife to death, escaped along with the child. There is absolutely no cross-examination or any suggestion to any of the witnesses to demolish their version that the appellant was not residing with the deceased at the house of informant or that he had not slept with the deceased on fateful night. There is absolutely no cross-examination or any suggestion to any of the witnesses to demolish their version that the appellant was not residing with the deceased at the house of informant or that he had not slept with the deceased on fateful night. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not at the house of informant or that he was elsewhere on fateful night. The appellant was apprehended by the first investigating officer along with the child. The first investigating officer of course has not been examined by the prosecution to establish the fact that he was apprehended by him. In order to ascertain the fact, we perused the case diary available with the Lower Court Record and find that on 27.01.2006, the appellant was arrested by police at Jadia Bazar from a Gumti along with the child. They were brought to P.O. village. The child was handed over to the informant and appellant was remanded to custody. PW-7 in his evidence at para-1 and PW-4 at para-12 have also stated about the arresting of appellant by the police at Jadia Bazar. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon as they are neither the eye witnesses to the occurrence nor the independent to establish the chain of circumstance. The PWs.1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 are family members and closely related with the informant. The submission of appellant is true that most of the witnesses are family members. But we do not find any force in his submission that they are not reliable on this count. We cannot undermine the fact that presence of the place of occurrence is natural. It is settled by a catena of decision of Apex Court that the evidence of closely related persons or family member cannot be rejected only on account of being family members. They are only considered with circumspect. All witnesses are either family members or the neighbours of the informant. Their presence in the house on the preceding night is not disputed. The neighbours (PWs.2, 4 and 5) reached at the place of occurrence and saw the victim lying on the Chawki having stabbed injuries on her neck. Their evidence is cogent and convincing. All witnesses are either family members or the neighbours of the informant. Their presence in the house on the preceding night is not disputed. The neighbours (PWs.2, 4 and 5) reached at the place of occurrence and saw the victim lying on the Chawki having stabbed injuries on her neck. Their evidence is cogent and convincing. They have stated that the appellant slept with the deceased and his minor child and after stabbing the deceased the appellant escaped from there. The appellant had verbal dual with the informant and his wife just two or three days preceding the occurrence as they had forbade the informant from selling his cycle. Another contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is delay in recording fardbeyan and it was manipulated and after thought. In fardbeyan the informant has stated that his daughter, PW-10 for the first time at 6 A.M. raised alarm about the death of deceased. The witness PW-7 at para-2 has stated that the police came in the noon. PW-1 at para-7 has stated that the police prepared inquest report and took away the dead body at 10-10.30 A.M. PW-3 at para-11 has stated that Chaukidar had informed the Sub-Inspector at 6 A.M. over mobile and the police reached immediately thereafter. The learned counsel took us to the aforesaid evidence to show that the recording of fardbeyan at 11.30 A.M. itself becomes doubtful particularly in view of statement of PW-1 at para-7. The learned counsel further submitted that non-examination of the first I.O. has prejudiced the defence as these vital omission and contradiction could not be brought on record by his cross-examination. 13. In the evidence of witnesses, we do not find any contradiction or deviation. The learned counsel has not pointed any material contradiction except that the PW-1 at para-7 has said that the dead body was taken away by the police at 10 or 10.30 A.M. It is not the case of defence that the police recorded fardbeyan after dispatching the dead body. There is difference of hardly one hour in recording fardbeyan even if we consider the evidence of PW-1. This witness appears to be illiterate as he has put his thumb impression on the deposition. He is not the witness of fardbeyan. There is no cross-examination as to whether he was having a watch or not. There is difference of hardly one hour in recording fardbeyan even if we consider the evidence of PW-1. This witness appears to be illiterate as he has put his thumb impression on the deposition. He is not the witness of fardbeyan. There is no cross-examination as to whether he was having a watch or not. The time disclosed by the witnesses at best can be said to be his own assessment. The informant at para-2 has specifically deposed about the manner of recording his fardbeyan which has not been challenged. The police after recording fardbeyan read over and explained to the informant who thereafter put his signature. The another witness Sanjay Paswan who put his signature on fardbeyan has died and so he could not be examined by the prosecution (PW-8 para-2). On careful consideration of the evidence of all the witnesses taken as a whole, it transpires the witnesses who are family members and neighbours of the informant are most competent witnesses and their evidence must be said to be above board. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any material discrepancy or contradiction going to the root of the case occurred in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So we find and hold that non-examination of first investigating officer has not prejudiced the appellant in any way. 14. The appellant in his statement given under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has simply asserted about his false implication. During cross-examination of the witnesses, the defence side has given different suggestions to the witnesses. A suggestion to this effect has been given to PW-9 that deceased was murdered by his father itself as she used to quarrel with him. The informant has been suggested that he was intending to take the earnings of appellant to which, he was not ready and so the informant implicated the appellant falsely. Another suggestion given to the informant is that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was at Punjab. Any suggestion given to the informant does not find any support from the evidence on record. During his statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant neither put any defence of his false implication nor denies his presence at the P.O. on the date of occurrence nor asserts that he was at Punjab or else where. Any suggestion given to the informant does not find any support from the evidence on record. During his statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant neither put any defence of his false implication nor denies his presence at the P.O. on the date of occurrence nor asserts that he was at Punjab or else where. He has not even denied the specific case of prosecution that he was residing with the deceased and on the fateful night, he after stabbing the deceased, left the house taking his two years old child. The evidence of his arresting at Jadia Bazar just after two days after the occurrence is also not in dispute. In the ruling reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 765, the Apex Court has observed that the examination of accused is not a mere formality. Answers given by the accused to the questions put to him during such examination has a practical utility for criminal Courts. Apart from offering an opportunity to the delinquent to explain incriminating circumstances against them, they help the Court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced at the trial. At the time of giving statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant kept mum and has simply denied his complicity. 15. In view of discussions made above, we find that the prosecution has established the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. The learned trial Court rightly found and held the appellant guilty and convicted. 16. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.