JUDGMENT : Bala Krishna Narayana, J. 1. Heard Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. I for the State-respondent. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 9.9.1987 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 240 of 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellants for imprisonment of life under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution story is that P. W. 1 Komal Prasad (informant) resident of village Muidi, police station Kemri, district Rampur gave a written report Ext. Ka1 at police station Kemri, district Rampur on 30.5.1986 at 21:45 hours stating therein that his son, Chetram was married to one Ramkali, daughter of Kishan Lal resident of village Juthiya, police station Shahzadnagar. About 13 days before the occurrence, Chetram's wife Ramkali had gone to attend the marriage in the house of his nephew, Babu Ram resident of village Shairakala, police station Milak from where she without telling anyone went to Juthiya. Day before the occurrence, he, his wife, Narma, his son, Chetram and Ganga Devi, grand-daughter of his brother had gone to village Chamarpura, police station Shahzadnagar to attend the marriage of the sister of Nathulal and where they met Chetrama's mother-in-law and made request to her to sent back Ramkali on which she took Chetram, his wife, Narma and Ganga Devi with her to village Juthiya in the morning while the first informant stayed back in village Chamarpura waiting for their return. When he met them at about 6 P.M. at the Chamarpura Bus Stand, Chetram told him that his mother-in-law had refused to send her back and Dalchand and Rajaram sons of Kishan Lal who were brothers-in-law of Chetram had threatened to kill him and they exhorted that they would neither let him return alive to his house nor they would return jewelry which Ramkali had brought with her. Noticing demeanor of Chetram's brothers-in-law, Chetram, his mother and Ganga Devi became terrified. Noticing demeanor of Chetram's brothers-in-law, Chetram, his mother and Ganga Devi became terrified. Thereafter, they returned to village Kemri by bus and from there all of them started walking for their village Muidi on foot when they were about 50-60 yards from their village Kemri, Chetram's brothers-in-law, Dalchand and Rajaram resident of village Juthiya armed with country made pistol came towards them at about 8:30 P.M. and the informant asked them to stop after identifying them in the light of the torch but Rajaram caught hold of Chetram and exhorted Dalchand to shoot him on which Dalchand fired with his country made pistol on the chest of Chetram from a very close range on which informant and his other companions started making noise which attracted several villagers to the place of occurrence but by that time both the accused Dalchand and Rajaram had fled towards 'Nahar ki Patri' in the west. They had recognized both the accused in the light of the battery torch. Chetram had died on the spot. 4. On the basis of the written report of the occurrence Ext. Ka1, case crime no. 86 of 1986, under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against both the accused, chek F.I.R. Ext. Ka2 and relevant G.D. entry Ext. Ka3 were prepared. 5. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sub-Inspector P. W. 5 S. N. Tyagi who reached at the place of occurrence in the night but since it was dark he neither recorded the statement of any of the witnesses nor inspected the place of occurrence. On the next day i.e. 31.5.1986 he again visited the place of occurrence and after recording the statement of P. W. 2 Narma and P. W. 4 Ganga Devi, he inspected the place of occurrence at the instance of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Ext. Ka4. He held inquest on the body of deceased-Chetram and after completing the inquest proceedings, prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka6, photo lash Ext. Ka7, challan lash Ext. Ka8, letter written to C.M.O. Ext. Ka9 and letter written to R.I. Ext. Ka10. Thereafter he packed and sealed the dead body and dispatched it for postmortem examination through Constables Ikhteyar Ahmad and P. W. 10 Chandrapal Singh. Ka6, photo lash Ext. Ka7, challan lash Ext. Ka8, letter written to C.M.O. Ext. Ka9 and letter written to R.I. Ext. Ka10. Thereafter he packed and sealed the dead body and dispatched it for postmortem examination through Constables Ikhteyar Ahmad and P. W. 10 Chandrapal Singh. He also collected plain and bloodstained earth and took in possession from the place of incident and prepared it recovery memo Ext. Ka5. He kept bloodstained and sample earth in two different boxes and sealed the same and prepared its recovery memo Exts. 3 and 4. 6. The postmortem on the body of Chetram was conducted by P. W. 6 Dr. T. N. Gupta on 31.5.1986 in district hospital Rampur who also prepared his postmortem report Ext. Ka17 and according to him the age of the deceased was about 30 years and he had died about 3/4 day before. He noted following ante mortem injuries on his body : Multiple oval gunshot wound of entry in area of 12 cm x 12 cm on right chest at right nipple each measuring half cm x ¼ cm x cavity deep. No blackening or tattooing. The cause of death according to him was shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injury. He also opined that it was possible for the deceased to have died on 30.5.1986 at 8:30 P.M. and the antemortem injury found on his body was caused by a firearm. 7. Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet was triable exclusive by the Court of Sessions, C.J.M. Rampur committed the case for the trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rampur where the case was registered as S.T. No. 240 of 1986 and made over for trial from there to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur who on the basis of the material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused-appellant abjured the charge and claimed trial. 8. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused-appellant examined as many as eight witnesses of whom P. W. 1 Komal Prasad, father of the deceased, P. W. 2 Narma, mother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Netram, P. W. 4 Ganga Devi, grand-daughter of informant's brother as witnesses of fact while Sub-Inspector P. W. 5 S. N. Tyagi, the investigating officer of the case, P. W. 6 Dr. T. N. Gupta, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, Head Constable P.W. 7 Nand Kishore, who had prepared the chek F.I.R. and the relevant G.D. entry and proved the same as Ext. Ka2 and Ext. Ka3 and Constable P. W. 8 Chandrapal Singh who had taken the dead body of the deceased after the inquest to the district hospital for postmortem examination were examined as formal witnesses. 9. The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges framed against them and alleged false implication due to enmity. 10. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Rampur vide impugned judgment and order convicted the appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment. However, co-accused Rajaram was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. 11. Hence this appeal. 12. We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record very carefully. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has firstly submitted that according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused had shot the deceased from a very close range but the postmortem report of the deceased does not indicate that any blackening or scorching was present around the only firearm wound found on the body of the deceased. In case if the prosecution version is that the shot was fired by the appellant at the deceased was almost a contact shot then in that case blackening and scorching should have been necessarily present. 14. P.W.6 Dr. T. N. Gupta who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased has also deposed that the shot must have been fired from a distance of about more than 4 feet, hence the prosecution version on the aforesaid point is wholly unreliable. 14. P.W.6 Dr. T. N. Gupta who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased has also deposed that the shot must have been fired from a distance of about more than 4 feet, hence the prosecution version on the aforesaid point is wholly unreliable. However upon perusing the statements of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad, P. W. 2 Narma and P. W. 4 Ganga Devi, we do not find that any of them have disclosed the distance from which the appellant had shot at the deceased. They have merely deposed that while Rajaram had caught hold of deceased-Chetram, appellant-Dalchand had shot him. P .W. 1 Komal Prasad has deposed that the shot was fired from a distance of 1 Biswa' but that in our opinion would not at all render his testimony unreliable or untrustworthy. We do not find any discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular version. 15. It has been next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad and the facts stated in the F.I.R. it is proved that the enmity of the accused was with P. W. 1 Komal Prasad and on account of which he had stayed back in village Chamarpura and had not gone to bring back his daughter-in-law from her parental home along with his son, wife and grand-daughter. Thus, there was no motive for them to kill Chetram. There is also no explanation why the appellant spared P. W. 1 Komal Prasad who was inimical towards them and kill Chetram. It is true that as per the prosecution case the accused were inimical towards the informant and in the given circumstances they should have shot P. W. 1 Komal Prasad but since the instant case rests upon direct evidence and there is consistent and clinching evidence of the three eye-witnesses unequivocally pointing out at the guilt of the appellant, motive looses significance and the prosecution story is not liable to be discarded on the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. 16. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant actually wanted to kill Chetram then that task would have been accomplished more conveniently and easily while Chetram was in the maternal home of his wife along with his mother and there was no occasion for the appellant to have followed the deceased with his brother and choose to shoot him in village Muidi. The aforesaid circumstance clearly indicates that the murder of Chetram was committed by some unknown persons and on account of the strained relations between the families of the deceased and his wife due to their marital dispute, P .W. 1 Komal Prasad falsely implicated the appellant along with his brother as accused in the present case after the dead body of deceased was found. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is also in our opinion without any force. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case where the prosecution case is based upon direct evidence. The prosecution story is not liable to be thrown out on the ground that the accused chose to end Chetram's life near his village Muidi rather than in his own house when he had gone there to bring back his wife from her maternal home. 17. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad and P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector, S. N. Tyagi, it is proved that the written report of the occurrence Ext. Ka1 which was scribed by Sompal Singh, Village Pradhan and resident of village Jiwai after the incident on the dictation of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad was not lodged at police station and the report which was lodged at the police station was some other report. In this regard out attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to the cross-examination of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad on page 13-14 of the paper book in which he had stated that he had put his thumb impression on the written report of the incident Ext. Ka1 in the police station as no ink pad was available in the village. Ka1 in the police station as no ink pad was available in the village. P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector, S. N. Tyagi, however in his examination in-chief on page 33 of the paper book has categorically deposed that the written report of the incident bore the thumb impression of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad when it was lodged by him at the police station and the Head Moharrir had not obtained the thumb impression of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad in his presence. The aforesaid discrepancy in the evidence of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad and P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector, S. N. Tyagi in our opinion is not sufficient to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The aforesaid discrepancy may be caused due to memory lapse because the statements of both the witnesses were recorded after more than one year of the occurrence and more over it is not so material. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the F.I.R. in this case is ante timed. Advancing his submission in this regard he submitted that in case the F.I.R. had been registered at the time indicated in the G.D. then there was no reason for not holding the inquest on the same night. The very fact that the inquest was held in the next morning and not immediately after the registration of the F.I.R., indicates that the F.I.R. in this case is ante timed. There is absolutely no force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also. P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector, S. N. Tyagi, investigating officer of the case has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that the case was registered in his presence at 21:45 hours on 30.5.1986 and he had immediately gone to the place of incident but since it was dark he neither held inquest nor recorded the statement of any of the witnesses. The aforesaid statement of P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector, S. N. Tyagi was not challenged by the defence counsel during his cross-examination. He denied the suggestion given to him by the defence counsel during his cross-examination that he had not held inquest in the night because the copy of the F.I.R. is required to be sent to the postmortem doctor along with inquest report and the F.I.R. itself was prepared in the morning by P. W. 1 Komal Prasad. He denied the suggestion given to him by the defence counsel during his cross-examination that he had not held inquest in the night because the copy of the F.I.R. is required to be sent to the postmortem doctor along with inquest report and the F.I.R. itself was prepared in the morning by P. W. 1 Komal Prasad. Then there was evidence of P. W. 7 Head Constable Nand Kishore who had registered and prepared the chek F.I.R. on the basis of the written report Ext. Ka1 given at police station Kemri by P. W. 1 Komal Prasad, that he wrote the chek F.I.R. in his own hand writing and signed the same and at the same time he recorded the gist of the F.I.R. in G.D. vide rapat no. 41 Ext. Ka3. He proved both the documents as Ext. Ka2 and Ext. Ka3. He in his cross-examination has categorically deposed that he had dispatched the special report immediately after the registration of the case vide G.D. entry 45 time 23:00 hours date 30.5.1986 through Constable Sher Mohammad. However, he corrected himself by deposing that the number of the report vide which special report was dispatched was 44 time 23:20 hours date 30.5.1986. He denied the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel that he had prepared the chek F.I.R. on 31.5.1986. 19. Thus, upon perusal of the evidence of P. W. 5 S. N. Tyagi, investigating officer of the case and P. W. 7 Constable Nand Kishore, we do not find that the F.I.R. in this case is ante timed. 20. It has lastly been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the three eye-witnesses of the occurrence examined by the prosecution during the trial are close relatives to the deceased being father, mother, niece, uncle and hence highly interested in securing the conviction of the appellant. The Trial Court erred in law in basing the appellant's conviction on their evidence without seeking corroboration from any other independent witnesses. There is no force in the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also. 21. In the case of Waman and others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 Crl. L. J. 4827, it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that merely because witnesses are related to the complainant or deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. There is no force in the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also. 21. In the case of Waman and others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 Crl. L. J. 4827, it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that merely because witnesses are related to the complainant or deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being relative cannot by itself discard their evidence. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of witness and Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with care. It has also been observed that if testimony of the related eyewitnesses, close relative of the deceased persons is found to be convincing and trustworthy about incident, the same cannot be disbelieved merely because of some omission in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and evidence before the Court. The fact that some statements of one of the eyewitnesses were not noted by the police cannot be a basis to reject the evidence. 22. The legal principle which emerges upon going through the aforesaid law report is that there is no law which prohibits taking into consideration and relying upon the evidence of a witness who is related to the deceased. The only safeguard which the court is required to observe is that the evidence of a relative or a partisan witness should be carefully scrutinized by the court and if the court after a cautious evaluation of the evidence of such witness comes to the conclusion that he has given a correct, cogent and reliable version of the incident then there is no reason why the testimony of such witness be discarded merely on the ground of his being relative of the deceased. 23. We have very carefully gone through the statements of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad, P. W. 2 Narma and P. W. 4 Ganga Devi who were examined by the prosecution during the trial as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. All the three witnesses of fact have consistently deposed that about 13 days before the incident, Ramkali, wife of the deceased had gone to attend the marriage of the nephew of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad (informant) namely Bhadar Singh in village Raurakala. All the three witnesses of fact have consistently deposed that about 13 days before the incident, Ramkali, wife of the deceased had gone to attend the marriage of the nephew of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad (informant) namely Bhadar Singh in village Raurakala. Ramkali was a lady of easy virtue and on account of the aforesaid reason they were unwilling to send her to her maternal home but after attending the marriage of Bhadar Singh she herself went to her maternal home along with jewelry. One day before the incident, they had gone along with the deceased to village Chamarpura to attend the marriage of sister of Nathulal where they had met Bhoori, mother of Ramkali and her brother, appellant-Dalchand. When they were asked to send Ramkali back to her matrimonial home Ramkali's mother Bhoori invited them to come with her to village Juthiya with the promise to discuss the issue of return of jewelry of Ramkali. Next day at about 8 A.M., P. W. 2 Narma, Chetram (deceased), P. W. 2 Ganga Devi went to village Juthiya while P. W. 1 Komal Prasad stayed back in Chamarpura and told them to return with Ramkali and then they would go to their village together. In the evening of the same day at about 5:30 P.M., P. W. 1 Komal Prasad (first informant) met P. W. 3 Ganga Devi, P. W. 2 Narma and Chetram at the Bus Stand of Chamarpura after they had returned from village Juthiya. They told the first informant that the parents of Ramkali were neither ready to send back Ramkali nor to return the jewelry. All the witnesses reached Kemri town by bus at about 8 P.M. and then started walking from the bus stand to their village Muidi when they were at a distance of about 50 paces from village Muidi and had reached near acacia shrub at about 8:30 P.M., they saw appellant-Dalchand and co-accused Rajaram who were brothers-in-law of deceased-Chetram coming towards them from the west armed with country made pistol and a torch and when co-accused Rajaram switched on his torch, P. W. 1 Komal Prasad also did the same. Rajaram caught hold of Chetram and exhorted that he was not to be left alive on which Dalchand shot Chetram and Chetram fell on the ground after being hit by the gunshot. The accused escaped towards the canal in the west. Rajaram caught hold of Chetram and exhorted that he was not to be left alive on which Dalchand shot Chetram and Chetram fell on the ground after being hit by the gunshot. The accused escaped towards the canal in the west. All the three witnesses of fact were subjected to a grueling cross-examination by the defence counsel but he failed to extract anything from them which may render their testimony unreliable or untrustworthy. P. W. 1 Komal Prasad in his evidence recorded before the trial court has fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out by him in the written report of the occurrence Ext. Ka1. P. W. 2 Narma and P. W. 4 Ganga Devi have in their statements recorded during the trial fully corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 Komal Prasad in all material particulars pertaining to the time, place, manner of assault and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. Their evidence has throughout remained consistent, clinching and unimpeachable. We do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence merely on the ground of their being the relatives of the deceased. 24. Thus upon taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we do not find that the Learned Trial Judge committed any illegality or legal infirmity in convicting the appellant, Dalchand and sentencing him for life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. 25. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 26. Appellant-Dalchand is on bail. C.J.M. Rampur shall ensure that appellant-Dalchand is immediately arrested and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence.