JUDGMENT : (Per : Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.) Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. A. Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Varanasi in Sessions Trial No.549 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, whereby the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo additional imprisonment for six months. The case in brief, as setup by the prosecution, is that the complainant Naseer Ahmad son of Amir Mohammad lodged a First Information Report on 31.08.2008 at 19: 50 hours at the Police Station Adampur Sadar District Varanasi. In his first statement he stated that he had married his daughter Dilbahar with Indrish alias Nate son of Peer Mohammad, resident of A-28/32 Mohalla Chandrapura Police Station Adampur District Varanasi. There was a dispute with regard to the possession of house between his son-in-law Indrish alias Nate and with his brother Khursheed. The wife of Khursheed had oftenly said that she would not come to that house till Indrish is killed by you and she did not live in this house for this reason. Khursheed was always intending to kill his son-in-law Indrish alias Nate. Today when he was coming back to home after his work was over, the accused assaulted his son-in-law Idrish with knife by getting chance at about 7:00pm in the narrow lane of Chittanpur Mohala. The incident was witnessed by Nastayeem son of Mohd. Shavir resident of A-28/32 B.X. Chandupura Police Station Adampur, Varanasi and Naushad son of Mustaq resident of C-13/297 Aurangabad, Varanasi and other villagers of the same locality, while the deceased was rushed to the hospital and was on the way of Kabir Chaura Hospital, he died, his dead body was kept in merchary room of Kabir Chaura Hospital. Pursuant to the said First Information Report PW5, Inspector Yaswant Lal reached the place of incident and prepared the site plan as well as recorded the statement of complainant Nazeer Ahmad and eyewitness Nastayeem. Pursuant to the said First Information Report PW5, Inspector Yaswant Lal reached the place of incident and prepared the site plan as well as recorded the statement of complainant Nazeer Ahmad and eyewitness Nastayeem. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. Dr.R. K. Singh, Senior Consultant Pandit Deen Dayal Hospital Pandeypur, Varanasi had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased and expressed his opinion about the cause of death as under. "due to comma and hemorrhage stroke.....head & brain and......right lung and liver." On 10.09.2008 the accused was arrested at the place near to Kashi railway station, at his stance the incriminating weapon knife wrapped with polythene was recovered. It was hidden by the accused at the bank of Varuna river. The police got recovered the knife and prepared the recovery memo. The Investigating Officer charge sheeted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and proceeded to try the accused. The complainant Naseer Ahmad son of Ameer Mohammad was examined as PW1, he supported the prosecution's case and in his cross examination he stated that his son-in-law was got admitted in the hospital by Nastayeem and Quayum and other two three persons who were not known to him. On the date of incident he was present in the home and he was informed about the incident by Naushad between 6:30 to 7:00pm. He reached the hospital at about 8:00 pm, he stayed thereat for about two hours, thereafter he went to the house of his son-in-law where he stayed till 11pm. He further deposed that no dispute with regard to house was pending between the accused and the deceased. The deceased was living alongwith his wife and children separately from the accused, both of them had no relations. Accused was also living in the same very house alongwith his wife and children. He deposed that he had given the statement "that there was dispute with regard to the possession between the accused and the deceased" as per information given by his daughter Dilbahar, she had told this fact after two to three days of incident, he has also witnessed the preparation of inquest report. He stated that he had become aware that Khursheed had murdered his son-in-law. He stated that he had become aware that Khursheed had murdered his son-in-law. However he was unable to disclose the reason for committing murder of his son-in-law. He had deposed that he reached the place of incident along with Police Inspector at about 10:45 to 11:00 hours it was densely populated area, when they reached the spot the womens of the adjoining house had come out, the blood was washed out. Womens told that they had washed out the blood being under fear, no blood was found on the walls. Nobody had come out at the place of incident to be the eyewitness of incident. Dr. R.K. Singh, Senior Consultant, Pandit Deen Dayal Hospital Pandeypur, Varanasi was examined as PW4. He had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Nate alias Indrish. He certified the postmortem examination report as well as ante mortem injuries described therein. He had disclosed the time of causing the injuries at about 6:30 pm on 31.08.2008. He further stated that the injuries caused on the body of the deceased were possible to be caused by stabbing and giving blow of knife. In his cross examination he stated that the injuries caused to the deceased were possible to be caused by different weapon. He further stated that there may be margin of half an hour either before or after the time, disclosed by him, of causing the injuries. Nastayeem son of Mohammad Shabir, who is said to be an eyewitness was examined as PW2. He deposed that he was known to the accused as well as deceased. Since they were in his relationship, his house is also situated after 3-4 houses of the house of accused, the accused is a very dangerous person, before this incident also he had been accused in a case of murder and there was a dispute with regard to the house between the accused and the deceased. He deposed that on the date of incident it was 6-6:30 pm while he alongwith his friend Naushad was going to have a cup of tea at Yadav tea stall situated in Chittanpur Mohalla, before 100mts of the tea stall, when they reached near to houses of Ansari people he saw that accused was assaulting his brother Nate alias Indrish with knife. Since the accused is a dangerous person he could not dare to rescue the deceased rather he ran away, and when accused Khursheed after killing the deceased had ran away, then he and other people of the locality reached the place of incident and rushed to Kabir Chaura Hospital with injured Nate alias Indrish. At that time injured was alive, but before reaching the hospital he died due to injuries caused to him with knife. Even then he was examined by the Medical Officer of Kabir Chaura Hospital who declared him dead. Naushad who was present with him telephonically informed to father-in-law of the deceased, he reached the hospital. He stated that he and Naushad told him about the incident seen by him on the basis of which the complainant got ascribed the report in the hospital itself and lodged the First Information Report at the Police Station Adampur. Thereafter the Police Officer came to the hospital and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased. The Police Officer also interrogated him, he told whatever the incident was seen by him, thereafter the Police Inspector reached the place of incident along with him and prepared the site plan, they saw that the blood was washed out by the local people. In his cross-examination he, by indicating the distance of the door of the Court from his place, said that he had seen the incident with such distance. He did not raise any noise rather he had run away. After 20 minutes when he reached the spot Naushad along with 5-6 persons of the locality were with him, at that time deceased was in unconscious position, therefore, he could not tell him anything. He further deposed that accused was involved in a case of murder of Kasim about 15 years ago. In his cross examination he deposed that he was not aware about the dispute, if any, was pending between the accused and deceased with regard to the house. Naushad son of Mustaq another eyewitness was examined as PW3, he had given the same very statement as was given by the eyewitness Nastayeem. Yashwant Singh S.I.S Branch Police Superintendent Office District Sonbhadra was examined as PW5. He had arrested the accused and at the stance of the accused he had also recovered the incriminating weapon knife which was used for commission of offence. Yashwant Singh S.I.S Branch Police Superintendent Office District Sonbhadra was examined as PW5. He had arrested the accused and at the stance of the accused he had also recovered the incriminating weapon knife which was used for commission of offence. He had also prepared the site plan and he certified his aforesaid act. He had prepared the inquest report in presence of the eyewitness and had sent the dead body of the deceased for its postmortem examination. In his statement he deposed that at per memo received from hospital the deceased was brought to the hospital in dead position by Abdul Karim and Mohammad Hanif. He further stated that at the place of incident there was no such evidence as it could reveal that the incident was caused at that time, since the place of incident was washed out. Constable Mr. Vijay Shankar Yadav, was examined as PW6. He had registered the First Information Report lodged by the complainant in Chik No. 119 of 2008 as Case Crime No. 245 of 2008 under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Constable Ram Daras Rai, was examined as PW7, he had registered the First Information Report under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Chick No. 113 of 2008 as Case Crime No. 240 of 2008, he certified the same. Sub Inspector, Devendra Kumar had investigated the case later on and he was examined as PW8. He was entrusted the case for investigation of Case Crime No. 245 of 2008 registered under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, in which the accused had been acquitted under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, therefore, there is no need to discuss the matter of offence committed under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. After examination of the witnesses the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who pleaded not guilty and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case filed by the complainant for the reason to gobble his valuable ancestral property being in connivance with his daughter and other family members. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh has submitted that informant was not an eyewitness of the incident rather he is interested witnesses being relatives of PW2 & PW3, therefore, his testimony is not reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh has submitted that informant was not an eyewitness of the incident rather he is interested witnesses being relatives of PW2 & PW3, therefore, his testimony is not reliable. The prosecution has failed to assign the reason, while the blood was washed out from the place of incident. He further stated that the prosecution has also failed to establish any motive of the appellant for commission of any such incident. He supported his statement with the submission of PW1 who in his cross-examination had stated that no dispute of house was pending between the accused and the deceased, they had been living and earning separately. He further submitted that dimension of injuries shows that it could be caused by different weapons, whereas in the First Information Report it was disclosed that deceased had sustained stabbed wound. He further raised doubt upon the presence of PW 1 & 2 on spot in view of their statements made before the Court. Per contra Mr. B.A. Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate, has submitted that the stateement of the First Information Report shows that it was only the knife which was used for commission of his murder, both were real brother. Insofar as the enmity between the accused and the deceased is concerned, the accused himself had admitted that there was enmity between them. In his statement he stated that he was falsely implicated by the complainant to gobble his valuable property. He further submitted that informant PW 2 and 3 who were relatives of the deceased as well as the accused, therefore there was no occasion for them to speak untrue against any of them. He further stated that PW2 in his cross-examination had stated that about 15 years ago the appellant had been accused in a murder of one Kasim, therefore his antecedents also shows that he was habitual to commit such offence. With the aforesaid submissions, he stated that there is no error in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. With the aforesaid submissions, he stated that there is no error in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Firstly when we examined the postmortem examination report of the deceased along with statement of Medical Officers who had conducted autopsy of the deceased, we found that in his statement he had stated that the injuries caused to the deceased were possible to be caused by stabbing and giving blow of knife. He had also disclosed the ante mortem injuries sustained to the deceased, the nature of which shows that most of the injuries are incised wound which were the reasons for the death of the deceased. The time of death which was assessed by the Medical Officer was 6:30pm on 31.08.2008. PW2 in his statement had deposed the same very time that while he was going for a cup of tea along with his friend Naushad (PW3) at 6 to 6:30 pm, he saw that accused was assaulting his brother Nate alias Indrish with knife, the incriminating weapon knife, which was hidden by the accused at the bank of Varuna river was recovered at his stance. PW2 and PW3, being the eyewitness had supported the case of prosecution. The terror of the accused is well established with the statement of PW2, as due to terror of accused he as well as PW3 could not dare to go for rescue of the deceased. This fact is also established that no person of the locality where the incident had happened had come forward to give statement about the incident. With regard to the question of availability of evidence on spot to establish the occurrence of incident after examination of the statement of witnesses, we found that PW5 Investigating Officer had deposed that when he reached the spot he did not find any evidence of commission of crime. Therefore, he did not indicate any such evidence in the site plan. He further stated that he had collected the blood stained cloths of the deceased Indrish, but he did not collect the earth, since it was washed out. In his deposition he also stated that nobody had come forward to be a witness of the incident. Therefore, he did not indicate any such evidence in the site plan. He further stated that he had collected the blood stained cloths of the deceased Indrish, but he did not collect the earth, since it was washed out. In his deposition he also stated that nobody had come forward to be a witness of the incident. PW1 in his deposition had stated that when he reached the spot with the Sub Inspector, he found that on the spot the blood was washed out and the women who were present over there told that being under fear they had washed out the same, even no blood was found on walls since it was washed out by rubbing it. He further stated that no local people, being under fear, has come forward to say that he had seen the incident. In Jayabalan Vs. UT of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 966 at page 213.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavor of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim' We have examined the statement of PW2 and PW3 who were said to be the eyewitnesses as well as the relatives of the deceased undoubtedly they were related to the accused also. Their statements are supported with the submissions of other witnesses, as well as nature of injuries caused to the deceased and the incriminating weapons i.e. knife which was used for causing the injuries, therefore, there is no occasion to discredit their testimony. In so far as the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of motive of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased is concerned, we are of the view that undoubtedly in this case no motive of the accused to commit crime was established but there were eyewitness who had seen the happening of the incident. PW2 & PW3 had deposed before the Court that while they were going to have a cup of tea they saw that the accused was giving blow of knife to the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal, 2008 (16) SCC 73 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 182 at page 88 held as under:- "39. The motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction." "40. As pointed out, even the accused persons have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused persons had no motive to commit the crime in question. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have specifically adverted to this without any contradiction and all of them denied the suggestion that the alleged incident was due to attack by the dacoits and the accused persons have nothing to do with it." Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that absence of motive of the accused to commit a crime does not fatal the case of prosecution. We have gone through the judgments of the Court below and found that the Court below has well discussed the evidences produced before it, in which no interference of this Court is warranted. In the result appeal stands dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order along with lower court record be sent to the court concerned.