JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these cases, therefore, both are decided by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, the facts of Government Appeal No. 244 of 2006 have been taken into consideration. 2. Government Appeal No. 244 of 2006 is preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2004, rendered by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2003, whereby the accused/respondents Riyasat and Amir were acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. 3. Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2004 is preferred by the complainant Naseem against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2004. 4. Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No.190 of 2004 were earlier dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.12.2012. Complainant Naseem has preferred Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 12.12.2012. Leave was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2016 in Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) No. 3894-3895 of 2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2016, set aside the judgment dated 12.12.2012 and remanded the matter to this Court with the observation to re-hear the appeal and to dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law. It is in these circumstances, the appeal and the revision are listed before this Court for hearing. 5. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that a report was lodged by Naseem. It was stated in the report that Naseem’s brother Nafees parked his motorcycle outside his house. Riyasat came with the buffalo-cart. The buffalo-cart struck against the motorcycle of Nafees. It led to the heated arguments. Thereafter, his brother went to the flourmill. When his brother reached near the house of Kurban at 4.30 p.m., Riyasat, Amir and Munawwar S/o Riyasat were already on the spot. They were carrying daggers. Riyasat, grabbed Nafees from the back and Amir and Munnawar S/o Riyasat gave knife blows on the stomach and chest of Nafees. When Munnawar S/o Naseem tried to save his uncle, he was also given dagger blows. Both of them were injured. On hearing the commotion, Mubarak Ali, Ismail, Shamshad @ Sukkha, Tahir Hasan and one Munnawar resident of Village Dhanpura reached at the spot and they saved them from the clutches of the accused. When Munnawar S/o Naseem tried to save his uncle, he was also given dagger blows. Both of them were injured. On hearing the commotion, Mubarak Ali, Ismail, Shamshad @ Sukkha, Tahir Hasan and one Munnawar resident of Village Dhanpura reached at the spot and they saved them from the clutches of the accused. Nafees died on the way to the Hospital while Munnawar S/o Naseem was admitted in the Government Hospital. The postmortem was conducted and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 6. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 06.11.2004. Hence, this appeal by the State and the criminal revision by the complainant. 7. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist/complainant, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to them, statements of the witnesses have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court, leading to the grave miscarriage of justice. 8. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has supported the judgment dated 06.11.2004. 9. We have heard learned Advocates and perused the judgment and the entire lower court record very carefully. 10. PW1 Mohd. Naseem has deposed that the motorcycle of his brother Nafees was parked in front of their house. Riyasat came with buffalo-cart. The buffalo-cart struck against the motorcycle of his brother. Heated arguments took place between his brother Nafees and Riyasat Ali. Thereafter, Riyasat Ali left the spot and his brother also went to the flourmill. When his brother was coming back to his home, near the house of Kurban Ali at 4.20 P.M., Riyasat, Aamir, Munnawar were already standing there. Riyasat and Aamir were carrying daggers in their hands. Munnawar was also carrying dagger in his hand. Riyasat proclaimed ‘let’s do away with Nafees’. Riyasat grabbed Nafees from his back while Munnawar and Aamir gave dagger blows on the chest and stomach of Nafees. His son Mohd. Munnawar, who was following Nafees, reached at the spot and tried to save him. Munnawar and Aamir gave dagger blows on the stomach of his son, whereas, Riyasat gave kick blows to his son. Riyasat grabbed Nafees from his back while Munnawar and Aamir gave dagger blows on the chest and stomach of Nafees. His son Mohd. Munnawar, who was following Nafees, reached at the spot and tried to save him. Munnawar and Aamir gave dagger blows on the stomach of his son, whereas, Riyasat gave kick blows to his son. In the meantime, Munnawar S/o Hamid, Sukha @ Shamshad, Ismail and Mubarak and other people reached at the spot. Injured were taken to the Hospital. His brother Nafees died on the way to hospital, while his son Mohd. Munnawar was admitted in the Hospital. He recognized the accused in the court. The clothes of his son Munnawar were handed over to the Police. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has also tried to settle the matter. PW1 Mohd. Naseem was again examined on 12.11.2003. According to him, they reached the Police Station at 9.30 a.m. He also deposed that they went to the Hospital at 5.00 P.M. 11. PW-2 Mohd. Munnawar is the injured witness. According to him, on 08.11.2002 at 4.00 P.M., the motorcycle of his uncle Nafees was parked in front of their house. Riyasat came from his house on a buffalo-cart. The buffalo-cart struck against the motorcycle. The motorcycle fell down. Altercations took place between his uncle and Riyasat Ali. He along with his uncle went to the flourmill. They came back from the flourmill. He was following his uncle. The moment, they reached near the house of Kurban, Riyasat and his sons Aamir and Munnawar, came on the spot. Munnawar and Aamir were carrying daggers in their hands. Riyasat exhorted ‘lets do away with Nafees’. Riyasat grabbed his uncle Nafees from the back and Munnawar and Aamir gave him dagger blows. He tried to save his uncle. He was also stabbed with daggers. He was also administered kick blows by Riyasat Ali. On the spot, Ismail, Mubarak, Tahir @ Shamshad @ Sukha and Munnawar S/o Hamid and his father had come. They (injured) were taken to the hospital. His uncle Nafees died on the way to Hospital. He was cross examined by the defence counsel. He has admitted in his cross examination that Flourmill was open and many people were present on the spot. He also deposed that he was hit by the accused with pointed daggers. His clothes were drenched with blood. His uncle Nafees died on the way to Hospital. He was cross examined by the defence counsel. He has admitted in his cross examination that Flourmill was open and many people were present on the spot. He also deposed that he was hit by the accused with pointed daggers. His clothes were drenched with blood. He did not know whether blood spilled on the spot or not. 12. PW3 Munnawar S/o Abdul Hamid has corroborated the statement of PWs 1 and 2. According to him, on 08.11.2002 at about 4.30 P.M., he had come to meet Tahir at Ghissapur. He noticed Nafees and his nephews coming near the culvert. He saw Riyasat, Munnawar and Aamir were already standing on the culvert. Riyasat proclaimed ‘lets do away with Nafees’. Riyasat grabbed Nafees from the back and Aamir and Munnawar gave dagger blows on the chest and stomach of Nafees. The nephew of Nafees tried to save him from the clutches of the accused. He was also stabbed. Munnawar was hit on the hand and stomach. He has admitted his close relationship with complainant Naseem in his cross examination. He did not remember how many blows were administered. 13. PW-4 is Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar, who conducted the postmortem examination. According to him, the cause of death of Nafees was excessive bleeding. The death has occurred at around 5.00 P.M. Injury nos. 1, 2 & 3 were possible with daggers on 08.11.2002 at 4.30 P.M. Injury nos. 4, 5 & 6 were possible due to fall. He also examined Munnawar Ali on 08.11.2002 at 5.20 P.M. He opined that all the injuries were fresh and injury nos. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury nos. 3 & 4 were caused by the blunt weapon. Injury nos. 3 & 4 could be caused by kick blows. He has advised X-ray of injury no.1 but no supplementary report was filed. 14. PW5 Sub Inspector Virender Negi deposed that he has prepared the panchayatnama between 9.00 P.M. - 11.00 P.M. He arrested the accused. The accused have got knives recovered and were taken into possession. Munnawar being a juvenile was tried separately by the Juvenile Court. He has also prepared the site plan. 15. The incident has taken place on 08.11.2002 in the afternoon. The motorcycle of Nafees was parked in front of his house. The accused have got knives recovered and were taken into possession. Munnawar being a juvenile was tried separately by the Juvenile Court. He has also prepared the site plan. 15. The incident has taken place on 08.11.2002 in the afternoon. The motorcycle of Nafees was parked in front of his house. Riyasat Ali struck his buffalo-cart with the motorcycle, which led to altercations of Nafees. Nafees went to the flourmill. Thereafter, when Nafees and Munnawar were coming back to their house, they were accosted by the accused, who were standing near the house of Kurban Ali. Riyasat proclaimed ‘lets do away with Nafees’. Riyasat grabbed Nafees from the back. Munnawar and Aamir gave dagger blows on the chest and stomach of the deceased. Munnawar tried to save his uncle. He was also given dagger blows by Aamir and Munnawar and beaten by Riyasat. Nafees died on the way to Hospital. Munnawar was also taken to the Hospital. 16. PW1 Mohd. Nasim has categorically deposed that his brother Nafees had altercations with Riyasat. Nafees had gone to the flourmill with Nafees. Nafees and his nephew Munnawar were coming back to their house. They were challenged by the accused. Riyasat Ali grabbed the deceased from the back. Munnawar and Aamir gave dagger blows on the chest and stomach of the deceased. Nafis Ali, while taking to Hospital has died and his son Munnawar was admitted to the Hospital. 17. PW2 is the material witness. He is the eyewitness of the entire incident. According to him, Riyasat Ali grabbed his uncle from the back, Amir and Munnawar gave dagger blows on the chest and stomach of his uncle. He tried to save. He was also stabbed. 18. PW3 Munnawar Ali has also corroborated the statement of P.W.2 Munnawar. He also testified the manner in which the deceased was given dagger blows by Aamir Ali and Munnawar. The deceased was grabbed by Riyasat Ali from the back. PW3 Munnawar has also seen PW2 Munnawar being stabbed by Aamir and Munnawar. Riyasat has also beaten Munnawar. Munnawar was hit on the stomach and chest. PW4 Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar has conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased Nafees Ali was excessive bleeding. He has also examined PW2 Munnawar. According to him, the injury nos. Riyasat has also beaten Munnawar. Munnawar was hit on the stomach and chest. PW4 Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar has conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased Nafees Ali was excessive bleeding. He has also examined PW2 Munnawar. According to him, the injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury nos. 3 & 4 could be caused by blunt weapon. 19. Learned Trial Court has erred in law by disbelieving the statement of PW3. PW3 is closely related to PWs 1 and 2 but only on this score, his statement cannot be disbelieved. The statement of relative witnesses can be relied upon but with caution. Statement of PW3 Munnawar inspires confidence. Learned Court has erred in law by coming to the conclusion that his presence on the spot is doubtful, merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is settled law that the relative witnesses are the natural witnesses and their statements have to be given due weightage. PW2 Mohd. Munnawar is the eyewitness. His statement has been corroborated by PW3 Munnawar about the manner in which, the incident has taken place. Learned Trial Court has also erred in law by coming to the conclusion that bloodstained earth was not taken into possession by the Police. There was lot of commotion. It is also settled law that even if bloodstained earth is not taken into possession and is not sent for forensic examination, it is, at the most, a case of defective investigation. 20. It has come on record that many persons have reached on the spot but the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the people are afraid of being involved in Criminal cases. In the present case, statement of PW2 Munnawar inspires confidence being the injured witness. Learned Trial Court has also disbelieved the recovery effected from the accused only on the ground that relatives of Nafees Ali were the witnesses of recovery. The recovery memos could be signed by the close relatives of the deceased and the injured. The minor contradictions are required to be overlooked. The Trial Court has also given undue importance to some discrepancies on the spot map prepared by the Police Officer. Learned Trial Court has also given undue importance to the fact that no blood was recovered from the cot. 21. The minor contradictions are required to be overlooked. The Trial Court has also given undue importance to some discrepancies on the spot map prepared by the Police Officer. Learned Trial Court has also given undue importance to the fact that no blood was recovered from the cot. 21. It has come on record that the knives were not sent for forensic examination but those were duly recovered. PW2 Mohd. Munnawar (injured) and PW3 Munnawar have seen the accused giving dagger blows on the chest and stomach of the deceased Nafees. Nafees was also stabbed by the accused. He was medically examined. The minor discrepancies with regard to the timing of registration of the F.I.R. will not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. The person, whose brother and son were being killed, was bound to be in confused state of mind at the time of registration of FIR. The endeavor of PW1 Naseem was to take care of his injured son and to take steps for performing last rites of his brother. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017 Vol-2 SCC 321 in the case of Ram Chander and others Vs. State of Haryana have summarized the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of statement made by the relative witnesses. Their Lordships have also held that minor contradictions or inconsistencies are immaterial. Their Lordships have held as under:- “33. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that since Guddi (PW9) was in close relation with the deceased persons, she should not be believed for want of evidence of any independent witness, deserves to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, which lays down the following proposition: (Harbans Kaur case, SCC p. 198, para7). “7. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.” 34. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, this Court further held: (SCC P. 164, para 38) “38…. It is clear that a close relative cannot be characterized as an “interested” witness. He is a “natural” witness. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, this Court further held: (SCC P. 164, para 38) “38…. It is clear that a close relative cannot be characterized as an “interested” witness. He is a “natural” witness. His evidence, however, to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.” 23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 152 in the case of Baleshwar Mahto and another Vs. State of Bihar and another have held that testimony of injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Their Lordships have held as under :- “12. Here, PW 7 is also an injured witness. When the eyewitness is also an injured person, due credence to his version needs to be accorded. On this aspect, we may refer to the following observations in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. : (SCC pp. 271-72, paras 28-30) “28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.” [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) ‘28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tube well. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.” 24. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 247 in the case of Arjun and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh have held that the statement of the close relative witness can be relied on. Their Lordships have held as under:- “10. Shivprasad PW 6 is the real brother of the deceased. PW 6 has deposed in his evidence that on 19-11-2006 at about 8.45 a.m., his brother Ayodhya Prasad alias Rahasu had gone to the field for cutting of trees along with four labourers who are eyewitnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8 and at that time A-1 Lalaram, A-2 Padumlal and A-3 Arjun came there with katta and gandasa and surrounded the deceased, quarrelled with him and prevented him from cutting the tree. The accused told the deceased that they are the owners of the land and questioned him as to why he was cutting the tree. When the deceased replied that he was the owner of the tree and he had the right to cut the tree, there was wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased and the accused attacked him with the weapons they had, namely, katta, gandasa and a stone. The deceased sustained injuries on his head, neck, back and abdomen and fell down on the field. He further deposed that he witnessed the incident from near the shop and the distance between the shop and the place of occurrence is 15 to 20 ft and due to fear, he did not go near. 11. Shivprasad (PW 6) is the brother of the deceased, his relationship with the deceased does not affect the credibility of the witness. Only because PW 6 is related to the deceased that may not by itself be a ground to discard his evidence. Where the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of a related witness, it is well settled that the court shall scrutinise the evidence with care as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. The fact of the witness being related to the victim or deceased does not by itself discredit the evidence. 12. In Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., this Court held as under: (SCC p. 92, para 33) “33. The court can convict an accused on the statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of the deceased and thus, an interested party. The condition precedent to such an order is that the statement of such witness should satisfy the legal parameters stated by this Court in a catena of judgments. Once those parameters are satisfied and the statement of the witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution, oral or documentary, then the court would not fall in error of law in relying upon the statement of such witness. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court, in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam.” We find no reason to discard the evidence of PW 6 for the sole reason that he is related to the deceased and that he is an interested witness.” 25. The accused, in furtherance of common intention, have killed Nafees Ali by using dagger. The accused have also attempted to murder PW2 Munnawar by giving him dagger blows on the stomach and hand. The injury nos. 1 and 2 have been certified by the Doctor to be caused with a sharp edged weapons. The accused had the knowledge and intention that injuries caused to the PW2 Munnawar could result in his death. 26. It can thus, be summarized that the statements made by the witnesses are trustworthy and natural. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 27. Accordingly, the appeal and the revision both are allowed. Impugned judgment dated 06.11.2004 is set aside. Respondents/accused are convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. for committing the murder of Nafees Ali and they are further convicted under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. for attempting to murder PW2 Munnawar. 28. Registry is directed to prepare and issue production warrants for production of accused to be heard on the quantum of sentence on 29.06.2017.