JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—Present jail appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Chandan Yadav against judgment and order dated 22/23.2.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Dacoity Affected Areas Act, Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 120 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 230 of 2009 (State of U.P. v. Chandan Yadav) under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Girar, District Lalitpur convicting and sentencing accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. with imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In the event of default in payment of fine, accused-appellant was also directed to undergo one year additional imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of case, as unfolded by Karan Yadav son of Rati Ram Yadav in First Information Report (in short ‘F.I.R.’), are that on 22.5.2009 his father had purchased one acre land from Halke son of Punnu Yadav four days ago in the name of mother of informant and due to this fact, accused-appellant Chandan Yadav, brother of Halke, was not satisfied. A panchayat was convened and it was told to accused-appellant Chandan Yadav that if he would refund entire consideration amount, land will be returned back, hearing this, accused-appellant left the Panchayat. On the day of incident, mother of informant was sitting beneath mango tree. Informant and his brother Shriram were feeding animals near the tree. At that time at about 03:00 PM accused-appellant armed with axe came there and suddenly caused repeated blow on the mouth and neck of mother of informant and committed her murder. When informant and his brother raised alarm, accused-appellant alongwith weapon, used in crime, ran away towards Bamhori. Incident was witnessed by other villagers also. Informant reached at police station concerned alongwith written report with request to take legal action against accused-appellant. 3. On the basis of written report (Ext. ka-1), chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-3) was registered at police station concerned on 22.5.2009 at 03:45 PM against accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. at Case Crime No. 230 of 2009. G.D. entry was also made on the same day on the basis of chik F.I.R. at (Ext Ka-4). Investigation started in the matter. Police reached at place of occurrence on the same day, took blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence; kept the same in sealed boxes preparing sample seal and fard (Ext. Ka-2). Inquest report (Ext. G.D. entry was also made on the same day on the basis of chik F.I.R. at (Ext Ka-4). Investigation started in the matter. Police reached at place of occurrence on the same day, took blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence; kept the same in sealed boxes preparing sample seal and fard (Ext. Ka-2). Inquest report (Ext. Ka-7) alongwith police papers i.e. Form No. 13, photo lash, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I., ( Ext. ka-8 to ka-12) were also prepared. Dead body of deceased was carried to mortuary for post mortem by Constable Mulayam Singh and Constable Fool Singh. 4. Post-mortem on dead body of deceased was conducted on 23.5.2009 at 02:00 PM. 5. On general examination, deceased was aged about 46 years, she was general body built, rigor mortis passed away from upper limb and was present on lower limb. In large intestine faecal matter and gasses were present. 6. On examination of dead body of deceased, following injuries were found. “(I) Laceration wound on angle of mouth right sZe 2 cm X 1cm skin deep with blood clots. (II) Laceration on angle of mouth left sZe 1.5cm X 1 cm with blood clots. (III) Laceration left side neck below adam’s apple lateal aspect 8cm X 3cm bone deep about 4 cm below left ear with cloted blood.” 7. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem cut throat injury. Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) has prepared post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-6). 8. On 23.5.2009, on pointing out of accused-appellant, police concerned recovered weapon ‘axe’ said to have been used in commission of present crime. Keeping the same in sealed cloth, preparing sample seal, memo (Ext. Ka-5) was also prepared in this regard. Investigating Officer has also sent sample earth, blood stained earth, axe recovered on pointing, sari, petticoat, one pair payal, one pair chhalla, pungariya and peaces of bangles, recovered from body of deceased, to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory is (Ext. Ka-19) in which all articles sent for examination blood was found. Blood found on the item No. 1 to 4 was disintegrated hence origin could not be ascertained. Investigating Officer interrogating the witnesses prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-14 and Ext. Ka-15). 9. After completing investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-16) against accused appellant was filed. Concerned Magistrate took cognZance. Ka-19) in which all articles sent for examination blood was found. Blood found on the item No. 1 to 4 was disintegrated hence origin could not be ascertained. Investigating Officer interrogating the witnesses prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-14 and Ext. Ka-15). 9. After completing investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-16) against accused appellant was filed. Concerned Magistrate took cognZance. Case being exclusively triable by sessions Court, was committed to the Court of sessions. 10. Accused-appellant appeared and charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against him to which he denied and claimed his trial. 11. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses, namely, PW-1 Karan Yadav (informant/eye account witness), PW-2 Shriram (eye account witness), PW-3 Head Constable Suresh Chand Khare (chik writer), PW-4 Lakhan Singh, scribe of written report (Ext. Ka-1), PW-5 Constable Mulayam Singh, who carried the dead body of deceased for post-mortem, PW-6 Raj Bishambhar, witness of arrest of accused-appellant and also recovery of weapon axe, PW-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, who prepared post-mortem report, PW-8 the then S.O. Udai Veer Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-9 Constable Santosh Sonkar, who carried axe, soil and other articles to F.S.L. and has proved letter (Ext. Ka-17 and Ext. Ka-18). 12. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the facts mentioned in written report. He has specifically stated that PW-1 and PW-2 both have made false statement before Court due to enmity. Accused-appellant also expressed unawareness about lodging of F.I.R., G.D. entry and other police papers prepared during investigation and material taken into possession by the police. Nothing was stated about statement made by PW-4 Lakhan Singh. As regards, statement of PW-5, it was stated that this witness has made statement before the Court to strengthen the prosecution case. PW-6 Raj Bishambhar have also made false statement. Nothing was expressed about the statement of PW-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Accused-appellant has also stated that without investigating the case properly charge sheet was submitted in the matter on insufficient ground. Accused-appellant did not express any view on F.S.L. report and has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case, in fact he has not committed present offence. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced by accused-appellant in his defence. 13. Accused-appellant did not express any view on F.S.L. report and has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case, in fact he has not committed present offence. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced by accused-appellant in his defence. 13. Having heard learned counsel for parties and going through the record, trial Court has found that prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charge against accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt warranting his conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. 14. We have heard Sri Shiv Vilas Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for State at length. 15. It was submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Written report as well as FIR both are suspicious documents. Motive assigned against accused-appellant was not proved. Since accused-appellant was also present at Registrar Office at the time of execution/registration of sale deed in question, on this point also, motive alleged in the matter becomes doubtful. It was next contended that no panchayat was convened in the matter. Entire prosecution evidence on this score is false and concocted. Referring to post-mortem report and injuries said to have been sustained by deceased, it was argued that deceased was done to death at some another place by unknown person as medical evidence does not support prosecution case. At this juncture, learned counsel for appellant also argued that in the present matter, death of deceased took place in morning hours, as is clear from symptom found on the body of deceased. It was next contended that incident is said to have taken place in the month of May i.e. a very hot season, it appears improbable and unbelievable that PW-1 and PW-2 were engaged in feeding animals at 03:00 p.m.. Referring to statement of doctor concerned, it was also argued that injuries found on the body of deceased may come in other manner caused by other person and same could not be caused with axe. It was next contended that recovery of axe is also doubtful. There is contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses as to whether it was kept beneath the culvert under the earth or it was simply beneath the earth. It was next contended that there was no occasion to remain present both witnesses at place of occurrence for feeding the animals. There is contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses as to whether it was kept beneath the culvert under the earth or it was simply beneath the earth. It was next contended that there was no occasion to remain present both witnesses at place of occurrence for feeding the animals. Presence of two witnesses at the place of occurrence also becomes doubtful as they did not try to save deceased. Had they been present at the place of occurrence, they would have certainly tried to save their mother. None of the witnesses present in the panchayat were examined by the prosecution. It was further argued that findings recorded by trial Court in impugned judgment and order suffer from perversity, infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Hallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 Law Suit (SC) 104. (ii) Narayan Kanu Datavale v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Law Suit (Bom) 291 16. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State argued that F.I.R. was lodged by the son of deceased promptly on the same day within few hours of incident. Incident took place in day hours. Presence of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as deceased at the place of occurrence is natural phenomena as there was cattle shed. Motive assigned to accused-appellant is also proved. Medical evidence fully supports oral evidence. Although PW-1 and PW-2 are sons of deceased yet they are natural and probable witnesses. Recovery of weapon ‘axe’ is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. Contradictions occurred in statement of prosecution witnesses on point of recovery and other facts are not fatal. Non-examination of other persons present in panchayat is not sufficient to disbelieve prosecution evidence. Recovery was made on pointing out of accused-appellant and is not doubtful. Injuries found on the body of deceased could be caused with axe. Prosecution was able to prove date, time and place of occurrence as well as involvement of present accused-appellant in present matter. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 17. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have gone through entire record including case laws cited in the matter carefully. 18. In this matter, as is evident from the record, incident is said to have taken place on 22.5.2009 at 03:00 p.m.. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 17. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have gone through entire record including case laws cited in the matter carefully. 18. In this matter, as is evident from the record, incident is said to have taken place on 22.5.2009 at 03:00 p.m.. F.I.R. was lodged on same day at 03:45 p.m.. Distance between place of occurrence and police station is three kilometers. Prosecution case is that informant Karan Yadav immediately just after the incident proceeded to police station and got prepared written report (Ext. Ka-1) with the help of PW-4 Lakhan Singh and submitted the same to police concerned. It is also evident from record that after registering the case on the basis of written report, police proceeded to place of occurrence and reached there before reaching the informant. Recovery memo, inquest report and other police papers have also been prepared on the same day. Inquest report as well as recovery memo of bloodstained earth etc. bear crime number. 19. Thus on close analysis of entire evidence, on point of lodging of F.I.R., we are of the view that F.I.R. against accused-appellant was lodged in this matter promptly. Written report was prepared at police station concerned on dictation of PW-1 by PW-4 Lakhan Singh. There is no delay in lodging F.I.R. nor it can be said that F.I.R. is prompt as PW-1 proceeded to police station on his cycle. Keeping in view distance between place of occurrence and police station as also contents of written report, existence of Ext. Ka-3, chik F.I.R. at the time mentioned in it is possible. It is also pertinent to mention here that prosecution case cannot be disbelieved or doubted on the ground of delay in lodging F.I.R. or on ground of promptness. 20. Now we proceed to analyze the submission regarding motive. 21. Although we are oblivious of the fact that motive relegates into back ground in a case of direct ocular testimony and is not of much significance, but where motive is false and cooked up, then it assumes importance to test the veracity or other wise of the prosecution witnesses. 22. In this matter prosecution has assigned specific motive against accused-appellant to commit present offence i.e. sale deed executed by brother of accused-appellant in favour of mother of informant just four days back. 22. In this matter prosecution has assigned specific motive against accused-appellant to commit present offence i.e. sale deed executed by brother of accused-appellant in favour of mother of informant just four days back. It is also case of prosecution that panchayat was convened and informant side was ready to return disputed land subject to refund of entire consideration amount by the appellant. It is also prosecution case that on the date of incident itself panchayat was convened accused-appellant as well as informant side both were present, accused-appellant was not agree with the proposal made by informant side and left the panchayat without any decision. These facts have been supported by PW-1 and PW-2, who were also present in panchayat. Although other persons present in Panchayat have not been examined yet only on this score fact regarding convening of panchayat cannot be disbelieved. It is not in dispute between the parties that a sale deed was executed by Halke, brother of accused-appellant, in favour of deceased. On point of possession, accused-appellant has raised objection. Thus, motive assigned in the matter against accused-appellant was proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Finding recorded by trial Court, on this issue is based on correct appreciation of evidence and needs no interference by this Court. It may also be mentioned here that some time a weak motive becomes a ground for committing offence. As mentioned above, though motive plays an important role in committing the offence yet where there are eye account evidence, motive loses its significance. Therefore, in the instant matter presence of witnesses on the spot as well as medical evidence has to be analyzed carefully and cautiously. 23. In the instant matter, incident is said to have taken place in Khalihan of deceased. Informant and his brother both claim themselves to be present on the spot and they were busy in feeding the cattle (bullock). Deceased was sitting beneath mango tree which was standing in same plot and it was about 03:00 p.m.. 24. Learned counsel for appellant has urged that in the month of May in a hot season it appears improbable and unbelievable that PW-1 and PW-2 were feeding cattle in open area. In this respect, it may be mentioned here that in villages at 03:00 p.m. in hot season also people feed the cattle. Prosecution case on this score cannot be said to be improbable or unbelievable. In this respect, it may be mentioned here that in villages at 03:00 p.m. in hot season also people feed the cattle. Prosecution case on this score cannot be said to be improbable or unbelievable. In the month of May, farmers generally perform agricultural work in the noon also, therefore, presence of PW-1 and PW-2 in their Khalihan is neither improbable nor unbelievable. Nothing has been brought on record by defence to establish that cattle belonging to informant were not tied at the place of occurrence. Since both witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 are farmer, prosecution case that both were busy in feeding cattle at the time of incident in Khalihan cannot be doubted. They are brothers and most natural and probable witnesses. As far as distance between place where these two witnesses were standing and deceased was sitting is taken into consideration, though there is minor variation in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as in site plan but on this score it cannot be held that cry made by deceased could not be heard by PW-1 and PW-2. Having heard the cry of deceased they reached at the place of occurrence. They were standing only about hundred paces away and from that place they could easily hear the cry of deceased and also see accused-appellant as well as deceased. 25. As far as medical evidence is concerned, three injuries have been found on the body of deceased and out of them injury Nos. 1 and 2 were found on right and left side of mouth, injury No. 3 is found on neck side of deceased. PW-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar in his statement made before the Court has clearly stated that injuries found on the body of injured could be caused with weapon axe and death of deceased could take place on 22.5.2009 at 03:00 PM. It has also been stated by this witness that trachea was also damaged. In the cross-examination, he has stated that no incised wound was found on the body of deceased and injury Nos. 1 and 2 may also come by blunt object but injury No. 3 was caused by sharp aged weapon. Margin of injury No. 3 was irregular. It has specifically stated by this witness in cross-examination that if the edge of axe is not sharpen and blows are caused at the same place, injury No. 3 would come. 1 and 2 may also come by blunt object but injury No. 3 was caused by sharp aged weapon. Margin of injury No. 3 was irregular. It has specifically stated by this witness in cross-examination that if the edge of axe is not sharpen and blows are caused at the same place, injury No. 3 would come. One possibility has also been opined by this witness that injuries found on body of deceased could also come by blunt object or brick/stone. Referring to these facts, learned counsel for appellant has argued that deceased was done to death in the morning. If statement of PW-7 are compared in light of facts mentioned in post-mortem report as well as stated by eye account witness, it clearly emerges that PW-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar has not clearly belied the fact that injuries found on body of deceased could not come on 22.5.2009 at 03:00 p.m. with the weapon ‘axe’. If such is the position then statement of PW-1 and PW-2, who are most natural and eye account witness, cannot be disbelieved. In this matter, injuries found on the body of deceased were caused in the manner and style stated by PW-1 and PW-2 with the weapon assigned to accused-appellant. Witnesses were standing about hundred paces away from place of occurrence, they proceeded to place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry of deceased and by that time accused-appellant had caused injuries upon deceased. When witnesses reached on the spot, accused-appellant was leaving the place of occurrence and was seen by the witness PW-1 and PW-2 leaving him alongwith axe. If ocular testimony is compared alongwith statement of PW-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, it cannot be held that medical evidence is contrary to ocular testimony. Medical evidence fully supports prosecution case. Date, time and place of incident has been fully established by prosecution from its evidence. 26. So far as recovery of weapon ‘axe’ is concerned, there is contradictory statement of prosecution witnesses as to whether axe was recovered by digging earth under the calvert or it was kept on surface of earth under the calvert. Prosecution was also not able to establish that ‘axe’ said to have been recovered in the matter was used in commission of present crime. F.S.L. report has not been submitted by prosecution to establish human blood on it. Prosecution was also not able to establish that ‘axe’ said to have been recovered in the matter was used in commission of present crime. F.S.L. report has not been submitted by prosecution to establish human blood on it. In this matter, if recovery of weapon ‘axe’ is excluded from evidence adduced by prosecution in support of charge, true import of evidence would be that deceased was sitting beneath mango tree on the date and time of incident, accused-appellant went to place of occurrence and due to enmity, proved by the prosecution, caused injuries to deceased with weapon ‘axe’ and deceased died instantaneously due to injuries sustained by her. PW-1 and PW-2 both are natural and probable witness, they have seen the incident, their presence cannot be doubted only on this ground that they could not save her mother. Presence of of witnesses at place of occurrence can also not be doubted on this ground as to whether accused-appellant and his brother were living together or separately or as to whether deceased and PW-1 and PW-2 were living together or separately. These facts do not go to the root of the case. Contradictions elucidated by defence in the prosecution evidence or omission occurred in the prosecution evidence on some points are not sufficient to discard the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. Statement of PW-1 and PW-2 can also not be discarded/disbelieved on the ground that they are sons of deceased. Since at the place of occurrence, at the time of commission of offence these two witnesses were only present alongwith deceased. Thus on this fact, there is no need of corroboration of the statement of these witnesses from statement of other witnesses. 27. As regards non-examination of panchayat members are concerned, ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 fully finds support from statement of PW-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Mere non examination of panchayat members will not render testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 unbelievable. It is suffice to say that if a witness examined in the Court is otherwise found reliable and trustworthy, the fact sought to be proved by that witness need not be further proved through other witnesses though there may be other witnesses available who could have been examined but were not examined. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that it is not the matter of quantity of evidence but the quality of evidence produced by the prosecution. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that it is not the matter of quantity of evidence but the quality of evidence produced by the prosecution. In this regard, we may make a reference to the case law reported in Food Inspector v. G. Satyanarayana, AIR 2004 SC 1236 , wherein Court has held that it is not the number of witnesses but it is the quality of evidence which is required to be taken note of by the Courts for ascertaining the truth of the allegations made against the accused. Section 134 of The Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact. The witnesses of fact produced on behalf of the prosecution, are trustworthy and well reliable and merely because no independent witness was examined, evidence of witnesses of fact cannot be discarded. In this case, prosecution was also able to establish the motive assigned against accused-appellant to commit the present offence beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Hence, on close scrutiny of entire facts and evidence, we are of the view that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant on the date, time and place of occurrence committed murder of deceased. The findings recorded by trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are based on correct appreciation of evidence and do not deserve interference by this Court. 29. So far as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for appellant are concerned, after a careful perusal of the same we are of the firm view that none of these judgments are helpful to the appellant because facts of these cases cited by learned counsel for appellant are entirely different from the facts of present case. Every criminal case stands on a different footing and therefore verdict of a criminal case cannot be blindly followed as a precedent in another case without looking into the facts peculiar to each case. 30. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, under which present offence has been committed, we are of the view that impugned judgment and order dated 22/23.2.2011 passed by trial Court is well thought and well discussed and trial Court has rightly held that prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, impugned judgment and order passed by trial Court is liable to be upheld and appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly present jail appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon accused appellant vide impugned judgment and order dated 22/23.2.2011 is hereby confirmed/ affirmed. 32. Copy of this judgment alongwith lower Court record be sent forthwith to Sessions Judge, Lalitpur for compliance. Compliance report be also sent to this Court. 33. A copy of this judgment and order be also sent to appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith. A compliance report be also submitted by concerned Jail Superintendent. 34. Shri Shiv Vilas Mishra, learned amicus curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel’s fee as Rs. 10,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad to Shri Shiv Vilas Mishra, amicus curiae without any delay and in any case within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.