JUDGMENT : Rajendra Kumar, J. Present Jail Appeal has been filed by accused-appellant-Ram Surat through Superintendent of Jail, against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi in Session Trial No.574 of 2011 (State versus Ram Surat), Crime No. 112 of 2011, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi, whereby Trial Court has convicted accused Ram Surat and sentenced him to life imprisonment along-with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that a written report Ex.Ka-1 dated 03.06.2011 was presented in Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi by Informant PW-1 Ram Murat, alleging that on 03.06.2011 at about 02:00 PM he was gong to his field when Km. Durga, adopted daughter of accused-Ram Surat, was coming home after learning sewing. He heard the noise from the house of accused. he himself and Durga went inside and saw Ram Surat assaulting his wife Smt. Vidya Devi with axe. On seeing them he (Ram Surat) ran away from the spot towards north leaving axe on spot. Vidya Devi became injured seriously and succumbed to injuries. 3. On receipt of written report Ex.Ka-1, Chik Report Ex.Ka-4 was prepared by Constable Kamlakar Prasad Chaudhary, PW-4, who registered the case under Section 302 IPC as Case Crime No. 112 of 2011. An entry of case was made in General Diary on same day at 15:05 PM, a copy whereof is Ex.Ka-5 on record. 4. Immediately after registration of case, investigation was undertaken by PW-5, S.I Sri Rajendra Singh, posted at Police Station Sarnath, who took copies of written report and Chik FIR and proceeded to place of occurrence, directed S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh, PW-6, to hold inquest over the body of deceased, recorded statements of PW-1 Ram Murat, PW-2 Km. Durga, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-6, prepared memo of axe and blood stained and simple cement and, recorded statement of accused in jail. Thereafter he was transferred and investigation was taken over by S.O. K.K. Pandey, PW-7, who, completed entire formalities of investigation and submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka.10 under Section 302 IPC against the accused. 5. Pw-6 S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh, under the direction of PW-5, held inquest over the dead body of Vidya Devi, prepared Panchayatnama Ex.Ka-7 and other relevant papers relating thereto. 5. Pw-6 S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh, under the direction of PW-5, held inquest over the dead body of Vidya Devi, prepared Panchayatnama Ex.Ka-7 and other relevant papers relating thereto. Body was duly sealed and sent to I.M.S., B.H.U., Varanasi, for post mortem examination. 6. Dr. Ghanshyam Maurya, PW-3 conducted autopsy of deceased Vidya Devi and prepared postmortem report (Ex.Ka-3) under his signature, expressing his opinion that death would have been caused due to shock and hamarrage on account of ante mortem injuries over neck and spinal cord. It was further opined that injuries might have been caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. axe. 7. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Judge for trial, wherefrom it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Varanasi for disposal according to law. 8. Trial Court, after considering the entire material on record, framed charge against accused-appellant on 24.10.2011 under Section 302 IPC to which accused denied and claimed trial. Charge reads as under: ^^eS] v'kksd dqekj ;kno] vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] U;k;ky; la[;k&8] okjk.klh vki vfHk;qDr jkelwjr ij fuEufyf[kr vkjksi fojfpr djrk gWW%& ;g fd fnukad 03&06&2011 dks le; 2-00 cts fnu LFkku cgn xzke HkSlksM+h vUrxZr Fkkuk lkjukFk ftyk okjk.klh esa vkius viuh iRuh fo|k nsoh dks vius ?kj esa dqYgkM+h ls dkVdj mls e`R;q dkfjr ds vk'k; ls xaHkhj migfr dkfjr fd;k ftlls mldh e`R;q gks x;hA bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gS tks bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gS vkSj] ,rn~}kjk] eSa vki dks funsZf'kr djrk gwW fd mDr vkjksi esa vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA^^ "I, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 8, Varanasi do hereby frame the following charge against you, the accused, Ram Surat: That on 03.06.2011 at around 2 pm at your house situated at a place within Village Bhisori, PS Sarnath, District Varanasi, you, with an intent to kill your wife Vidya Devi, hacked her with an axe inflicting her with grave injuries which led to her death. In this way, you have committed an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, which is within the cognizance of this court. I do hereby direct you to be tried by this court for the aforesaid charge." (English Translation by Court) 9. In this way, you have committed an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, which is within the cognizance of this court. I do hereby direct you to be tried by this court for the aforesaid charge." (English Translation by Court) 9. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, out of them PW1-Ram Murat, PW-2-Durga Rani are witnesses of fact; and PW-3 Dr. Ghanshyam Maurya, PW4- Contable K.P. Chaudhary, PW-5 S.I. Rajendra Singh, PW-6- S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh and PW-6 S.I. Sri K.K. Pandey are formal witnesses. 10. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining all incriminating and other evidence and circumstances. Accused denied prosecution story in toto and all formalities of investigation were said to be wrong. He claimed false implication and statement of witnesses is said to be false. In response of question no.16, he answered that he was implicated in false case just to grab the land of his share. He adduced D.W.-1 Dr. R.K. Singh and himself as D.W.-2 in defence. 11. Ultimately session trial came to be heard and disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and analyzing entire evidence led by prosecution on record, Trial Court has found accused-appellant guilty and convicted him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed through Jail. 12. We have heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for appellant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A for State-respondent at length and gone through the record available on file carefully with the valuable assistance of learned Counsel for parties. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for appellant has challenged conviction and sentence of accused-appellant, advancing his submissions, in the following manners :- (i) There is no independent eye witness. (ii) There is no motive to accused to commit the present crime. (iii) P.W.-1 has not supported prosecution version and in cross examination he has given a proper explanation for resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he cannot be turned as reliable witness. (iv) There are several contradictions rendering prosecution case doubtful. (v) Medical evidence is not in consonance with ocular evidence. 14. (iii) P.W.-1 has not supported prosecution version and in cross examination he has given a proper explanation for resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he cannot be turned as reliable witness. (iv) There are several contradictions rendering prosecution case doubtful. (v) Medical evidence is not in consonance with ocular evidence. 14. Per contra learned AGA opposed submissions and urged that PW-1 and 2 are natural witnesses of fact, who have supported prosecution and established that deceased was assaulted by accused with axe in her house. P.W.-1 has supported prosecution version in examination in chief but due to relationship with accused, turned away from his previous statement. It is settled principle of law that entire statement cannot be thrown away due to some resilement. P.W.-2 has supported prosecution case, besides being adopted daughter of accused, therefore, there appears no reason to disbelieve her statement. Prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Medical evidence also supports prosecution version. 15. Although time, date, place and nature of injuries found on the persons of deceased could not be disputed from the side of accused-appellant but according to learned counsel for appellant, he is not responsible for committing murder of Smt. Vidya Devi. Thus from the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 6, time, date, place and injuries stand proved. 16. Only question remains for consideration is, "whether accused-appellant committed murder of his wife Vidya Devi by inflicting axe blows on her and Trial Court has rightly convicted him or not?" 17. We now proceed to consider rival submissions on merit. It will be appropriate to briefly consider the evidence of prosecution as well as defence available on record. 18. Pw-1 Ram Murat, real younger brother of accused-appellant has deposed that his brother (accused-appellant) suspected character of his wife. Being issue-less, he has adopted a daughter, namely, Durga Rani (PW-2, an orphan child). On the fateful day i.e. 3.6.2017 at about 2:00 PM, when he (PW-1) was going to his house, Durga Rani (PW-2) was returning to house after learning sewing. When both of them reached near the house of accused-appellant, they heard noise from the house of accused-appellant. He along with PW-2 entered the house and saw that accused-appellant was assaulting his wife Vidya Devi with axe. On seeing them, accused-appellant ran away from spot leaving his axe there. When both of them reached near the house of accused-appellant, they heard noise from the house of accused-appellant. He along with PW-2 entered the house and saw that accused-appellant was assaulting his wife Vidya Devi with axe. On seeing them, accused-appellant ran away from spot leaving his axe there. Victim Vidya Devi got seriously injured and was not in a position to speak and move. She succumbed to injuries on the spot and accused-appellant ran away from the spot. Many persons of the same vicinity gathered. He got written tehrir Ex.Ka-1 scribed by one Paras Nath Patel, resident of Paterwa (not examined), and presented it at Police Station Sarnath. He further deposed that he showed the place of occurrence to Investigating Officer and proved inquest report (Ex.Ka-2). In cross-examination, he resiled from previous statement in chief by saying that he did not see accused killing Vidya Devi. Witness withstood cross-examination but has not given any explanation as to why he has deposed against accused-appellant in examination-in-chief. It appears that being brother of accused-appellant, he turned hostile but he proved presence of PW-2 on the place of occurrence. From the statement of PW-1, it is proved that Smt. Vidya Devi was assassinated on the relevant time, date and place as stated by prosecution. 19. Pw-2 Km. Durga Rani, evidently adopted daughter of accused-appellant deposed that on the fateful day i.e. 3.6.2011 at about 2:00 PM when she returned to home, she heard scream from her house. She and her uncle PW-1 entered the room, and saw that her father (accused-appellant) was assaulting her mother by axe. On seeing her and his brother, he (accused-appellant) ran away towards north of the village leaving his axe on the spot. Her mother received serious injuries on neck, head and face and was not in a position to say anything. She succumbed to injuries on the spot. She further deposed that many persons of the village gathered there. She and her uncle Ram Murat (PW-1) showed the place of occurrence to Investigating Officer, who recorded her statement. Witness recognized accused-appellant in the Court as her father. This witness also withstood cross-examination and no material could be extract which may render her statement doubtful or unreliable. In her cross-examination, witness specifically deposed that her father had suspected the character of her mother. Presence of PW-2 on spot finds support from the evidence of PW-1 also. Witness recognized accused-appellant in the Court as her father. This witness also withstood cross-examination and no material could be extract which may render her statement doubtful or unreliable. In her cross-examination, witness specifically deposed that her father had suspected the character of her mother. Presence of PW-2 on spot finds support from the evidence of PW-1 also. Apart from this, presence of PW-2 on spot, due to being adopted daughter is quite natural. 20. In this way, both the witnesses have proved that accused-appellant caused death of his wife by giving axe blows. It would be relevant to mention here that axe which is said to be used in the commission of offence has been found on spot by Investigating Officer, who prepared recovery memo on the spot and both witnesses, namely, Ram Murat (PW-1) and Durga Rani (PW-2) proved that accused-appellant ran away from the spot towards north of the village, leaving his axe there. This part of statement of PWs-1 and 2 find support from the recovery of axe on the spot. 21. Pw-3 is Dr. Ghanshyam Maurya, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Vidya Devi and prepared post-mortem report (Ex.Ka-3). He found two ante-mortem injuries on her person which read as under :- (i) Incised choped wound 13 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on outer part of neck. (ii) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x muscel deep on outer part of left arm 5 cm below tip of left shoulder. 22. In the statement, Doctor opined that death was possible due to shock and hemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries and both injuries might have occurred by a sharp edged weapon like axe and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this way medical evidence totally corroborates the ocular evidence and it is fully compatible with the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. 23. So far as the argument of learned Advocate for accused-appellant regarding non-examination of independent witness and no motive to accused-appellant are concerned, we are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for accused-appellant for the reasons that it is a case of day light murder. It can often be seen that in a serious offence like murder, no body is ready to come forward to give evidence in support of prosecution due to fear of evil. It can often be seen that in a serious offence like murder, no body is ready to come forward to give evidence in support of prosecution due to fear of evil. This submission made by learned counsel for applicant is thoroughly misconceived. Mere relationship is not sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy ocular testimony. It is now well settled law. In Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 AIR(SC) 364, Court has held as under :- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 24. In Dharnidhar v. State of UP, 2010 (7) SCC 759 , Court has observed as follows :- "There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry, 2010 (1) SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim" 25. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim" 25. In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, 2013 (15) SCC 298 , Court has held as under :- "11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP, 2011 AIR(SC) 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P, 2013 AIR(SC) 308)." 26. It is settled that merely because witnesses are closed relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of witness, more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out, whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 27. So far as motive is concerned, it is well settled that where direct evidence is worthy and it can be believed, then motive does not carry much weight. It is also notable that mind set of accused persons differs from each other. Thus merely because that there was no strong motive to commit the present offence, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. 28. In Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, 2012 (3) SCC 196 , Court held as under :- "As regards motive, it is well established that if the prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of motive looses practically all relevance. In this case, we find the ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it." 29. In this case, we find the ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it." 29. In so far as discrepancies, variation and contradiction in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case. 30. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, 2012 (4) SCC 124 , Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 31. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent decision of Apex Court (3 Judges) in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi), decided on 19.09.2018. 32. In the present case, it is fully established that Vidya Devi was seriously injured by accused in the house. Evidence shows that the dead body of Vidya Devi was found in the house at the time of inquest. The medical evidence shows that her death might have occurred due to ante mortem injuries at the time as alleged by prosecution. Accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has given reply that witnesses were given statement on account of enmity but he did not suggest as to what enmity, PW-1 Ram Murat, his real brother and PW-2 Durga adopted daughter, would have had with him, therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to come to conclusion that accused caused death of victim Vidya Devi by causing injuries on her with axe due to which she succumbed to injuries. 33. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and legal preposition discussed herein before, we are of considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant and Trial Court has rightly convicted him for having committed an offence under Section 302 IPC. No interference is warranted. Appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 34. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and legal preposition discussed herein before, we are of considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant and Trial Court has rightly convicted him for having committed an offence under Section 302 IPC. No interference is warranted. Appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 34. So far as sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 35. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, 2014 (7) SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, 1990 (4) SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, 2005 (5) SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) SCC 175 ]. 36. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, 2014 (7) SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, 1990 (4) SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, 2005 (5) SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) SCC 175 ]. 36. Hence, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant-Ram Surat by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive and it appears fit and proper and no question arises to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon him. 37. In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgement and order dated 31.3.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi in Session Trial No.574 of 2011 (State versus Ram Surat), Crime No. 112 of 2011, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi, is maintained and confirmed. 38. Lower Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent immediately to Court and Jail Superintendent concerned for necessary compliance and to apprise the accused forthwith. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court. 39. Before parting we provide that Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant who assisted the Court very diligently, 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 him without any delay and, in any case, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.