JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.1986 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 194 of 1985, (State V Rajdeo Pandey and three others), under Sections 302, 307 of IPC, P.S. Mehnagar, District Azamgarh, whereby all the four accused-appellants, namely, Rajdeo Pandey, Lalji Singh, Om Prakash and Shesh Nath Pandey have been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and four years rigorous imprisonment respectively. 2. Accused-Appellants Lalji Singh and Om Prakash expired during pendency of this appeal and thus, the appeal on their behalf was already abated by this Court vide orders dated 28.03.2018 and 17.07.2019. Now, this appeal is confined only in respect of accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey and Shesh Nath Pandey. 3. As per prosecution version, there was a dispute between complainant Ramjeet and accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey over a pond of village, as accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey has got mutated pond land in his name, while way of complainant was through that pond. In that regard, a case was lodged against the complainant, but he was acquitted in that case. Deceased Jhagroo was a witness in a case initiated under Section 110 Cr.P.C. against accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey. Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. have also taken place against the parties. Due to these reasons, accused persons were nurturing animosity against the complainant and deceased. Three days prior to the incident, accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey, Lalji, Om Prakash and Shesh Nath Pandey have threatened the complainant and his brother Jhagroo (deceased). The incident of this case took place on 10.07.1983. On that day, complainant's brother Jhagroo was ploughing his field, while complainant and his wife were collecting grass nearby. At around 9:00 AM, all the accused-appellants armed with clubs, came out from nearby bushes and hurling abuses they started assaulting complainant and his brother Jhagroo with clubs. Complainant and Jhagroo fell down, but accused-appellant Shesh Nath Pandey continued to assault complainant, while deceased-appellant Lalji Singh caught hold of his wife and accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey and deceased-appellant Om Prakash assaulted Jhagroo and they even jumped at his chest. Hearing noise, Dhruv Narayan Singh, Shesh Bahadur Singh, Surendra and some other persons reached there and intervened. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants ran away from spot. Complainant and injured were taken to police station, but Jhagroo succumbed to injuries on the way. Hearing noise, Dhruv Narayan Singh, Shesh Bahadur Singh, Surendra and some other persons reached there and intervened. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants ran away from spot. Complainant and injured were taken to police station, but Jhagroo succumbed to injuries on the way. 4. Complainant/Pw-1 Ramjeet submitted a written report Ex. Ka-1 at the police station and on that basis, case was registered on 10.07.1983 at 11:30 hours, under Sections 302, 307, 323/34 of IPC against all the four accused-appellants vide FIR Ex. Ka-4. 5. The inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-6 S.I. Daya Ram and inquest report Ex. Ka-7 was prepared. Dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem. 6. Post-Mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 11.07.1983 vide post-mortem report Ex. Ka.3 and following injuries have been found on the person of the deceased. (i) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the front and middle of left leg on exposure haematoma present in area of 5 cm x 4 cm. Both bone are fractured. (ii) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on right side forehead close to right eyebrow. (iii) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on tip of nose. (iv) Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on middle and both side front of chest in between both nipple. (v) Contused abrasion in an area of 12 cm x 6 cm on anterio lateral aspect of right arm elbow and forearm seen above right wrist. (vi) Lacerated wound on left side front of 3rd, 4th and 5th toe in an area of 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on Exposure underneath bone fractured. (vii) Contused swelling 8 cm x 4 cm on dorsal aspect of right sole. (viii) Contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on front of right ankle and leg. (ix) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of right knee. (x) Multiple contusion in one area of 8 cm x 4 cm on outer aspect of left shoulder and arm. (xi) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the front of right 3rd toe on exposure bone fractured. As per Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 7. Pw-1 Ramjeet, who was also an injured in the incident, was medically examined by PW-3 Dr. (xi) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the front of right 3rd toe on exposure bone fractured. As per Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 7. Pw-1 Ramjeet, who was also an injured in the incident, was medically examined by PW-3 Dr. Ram Jas Ram and following injuries were found on his person: (i) Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x bone deep x .5 cm on the left parietal part of skull 8 cm above few centemeter uppper margin of pinna left side wound and contused by soft blood clot. (ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x .5 cm x bone deep on the forehead 1 cm above for the root of nose. (iii) Lacerated wound .5 x.25 cm x bone deep posterior surface of forearm right side 10 cm above the wrist joint and lateral swelling 8 cm x 5 cm around this lacerated wound and there is suspected fracture of bone underneath. Advised x-ray for wrist right side. (iv) Lacerated wound .5 x .5 cm deep bone dorsal surface of palm and the root of index finger blood is oozing out from the wound and swelling around this wound and whole of the palm right side dorsal surface advised x-ray palm right side. (v) Tromated swelling whole of the upper arm left side advised x-ray. upper arm left side. (vi) Lacerated wound 2 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on the back of upper arm left side soft rose blood clot inside the wound. (vii) Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on the back of gluteal region (skin in rose in colour). (viii) Bruise 4 cm x 2 cm on upper and lateral surface of thigh left side (skin in rose in colour). (ix) Bruise 7 cm x 2 cm on the upper end posterior surface of thigh right side (skin in rose in colour). (x) Bruise 15 cm x 2 cm on the posterior surface of thigh and gluteal foled (skin in rose in colour). (xi) Bruise 4 cm x 1 cm on the lateral surface of right thigh above knee joint (skin in rose in colour). 8. During course of investigation, PW-6 Daya Ram recorded statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, all the accused-appellants were charge sheeted. 9. (xi) Bruise 4 cm x 1 cm on the lateral surface of right thigh above knee joint (skin in rose in colour). 8. During course of investigation, PW-6 Daya Ram recorded statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, all the accused-appellants were charge sheeted. 9. Learned trial court framed charge under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC against all the four accused-appellants. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined six witnesses. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. In defence, accused persons have examined DW-1 Girja Prasad Yadav. 11. After hearing and analysing evidence, all the four accused were convicted under section 302 and 307 of IPC vide impugned judgment dated 28.07.1986 and sentenced, as stated in para no. 1 of this judgment. 12. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, accused-appellants have preferred the present appeal. 13. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned Additional Government Advocate. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused-appellants has raised the following points: (i) that presence of alleged eye witnesses at the scene is doubtful. There is no evidence to show that PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti were collecting grass at the spot as their position was not shown in site plan. It is also doubtful that the deceased was ploughing his field. As per PW-1, deceased was ploughing his field by ox, but there is no evidence of presence of any ox. PW-1 Ranjeet has sustained only simple injuries. (ii) that PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti are highly interested and inimical witnesses. As per prosecution version, one Dhruv Narayan Singh, Shesh Bahadur Singh and Surendra have reached at the spot, but none of them has been examined by the prosecution. It was submitted that in absence of evidence of any independent witness, testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 cannot be relied upon. (iii) that prosecution could not establish spot of incident. Prosecution has changed the spot of incident from one place to another, which makes prosecution case doubtful. It was submitted that in absence of evidence of any independent witness, testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 cannot be relied upon. (iii) that prosecution could not establish spot of incident. Prosecution has changed the spot of incident from one place to another, which makes prosecution case doubtful. (iv) that accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey has made complaint against S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya, Incharge of Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh and that PW-6 S.I. Daya Ram has taken charge from S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya on the day of the incident. It was stated that a case was also lodged against Hari Bhajanlal Arya under Section 218 IPC and one inquiry against him was conducted by the C.I.D. Leaned counsel has argued that the accused-appellants were implicated falsely in this case with connivance of said S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya. In this regard, learned counsel also pointed out statement of DW-1 Girja Prasad Yadabv and certain documents filed in defence evidence. 15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has supported the impugned judgment and argued that in the alleged incident PW-1 Ramjeet is an injured witness and he has made a clear statement against the accused-appellants. PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti have stated about entire incident and their version is supported by medical evidence. They have been subjected to cross-examination but no adverse fact could emerge. The fact that PW-1 was injured in the alleged incident, itself establishes his presence at the spot. It was submitted that even if there was enmity between accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey and alleged S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya, it would not affect the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4. At the time of the alleged incident and when the case was lodged, the Incharge of police station Mehnagar was PW-6 S.I. Daya Ram, who has investigated the case. It cannot be believed that the Investigating Officer would implicate the accused-appellants falsely in this case at instance of his predecessor i.e. S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya. The FIR has been lodged by PW-1 promptly by filing written complaint Ex. Ka-1 naming all four accused persons. Learned State counsel submitted that conviction of the accused-appellants is based on evidence and the same does not call for any interference and the present appeal has no substance. 16. We have considered rival submissions and perused record. 17. The FIR has been lodged by PW-1 promptly by filing written complaint Ex. Ka-1 naming all four accused persons. Learned State counsel submitted that conviction of the accused-appellants is based on evidence and the same does not call for any interference and the present appeal has no substance. 16. We have considered rival submissions and perused record. 17. In evidence, PW-1 Ramjeet stated that on the day of incident at about 9:00 AM, his brother Jhagaroo was ploughing his field, while he (PW-1) and his wife were collecting grass. Accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey, Shesh Nath Pandey, deceased accused Om Prakash and Lalji Singh, armed with lathis appeared there and on the exhortation of accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey to kill Jhagaroo and Ramjeet, all the four accused-appellants started attacking PW-1 complainant and deceased Jhagaroo with lathis (clubs). Hearing noise of PW-1 Ramjeet and his brother Jhagaroo, one Dhruv Narayan Singh, Shesh Bahadur Singh and Surendra Singh reached there. When wife of the complainant Kulwanti tried to intervene, accused-appellant Lalji Singh caught hold of her. Accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey and Om Prakash jumped on the chest of Jhagaroo and gave lathi blows at his chest. Due to injuries, Jhagaroo fell down. Accused-appellant Shesh Nath Pandey assaulted PW-1 Ramjeet. After incident, all the accused-appellants ran away from spot. While the villagers were taking away Jhagaroo and Ramjeet on cots, Jhagaroo succumbed to injuries. PW-1 Ramjeet, further stated that he got written a complaint from one Dhruv Narayan and it was sent to police station and he was medically examined. PW-1 further stated that they have initiated proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. against accused-appellant Rajdeo and Jhagaroo was a witness in that case. Earlier, proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were also going on between the parties and that about 3-4 days prior of the incident, accused persons have threatened to kill complainant and his brother. It was also stated that accused-appellant Rajdeo has got mutated land of pond of village in his name, while the way of PW-1 Ramjeet was through that pond. 18. Pw-4 Kulwanti, has stated that on the day of incident at about 9:00 AM, Jhagaroo was ploughing his field, while she and her husband PW-1 Ramjeet were collecting grass. All the four accused-appellants came there and started assaulting Jhagaroo and Ramjeet with clubs. 18. Pw-4 Kulwanti, has stated that on the day of incident at about 9:00 AM, Jhagaroo was ploughing his field, while she and her husband PW-1 Ramjeet were collecting grass. All the four accused-appellants came there and started assaulting Jhagaroo and Ramjeet with clubs. When she tried to save them, accused-appellant Lalji caught hold her and accused-appellants Rajdeo and Om Prakash jumped on the chest of Jhagaroo and caused injuries on his chest. Hearing noise, Dhruv Narayan Singh, Shesh Bahadur Singh and Surendra Singh reached there and thereafter, accused-appellants ran away from there. 19. Pw-2 Constable Panchu Prasad, is a formal witness, who assisted during investigation. PW-3 Dr. Ram Jas Ram, has medically examined PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-5 Dr. S.K. Gupta has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. PW-6 S.I. Daya Ram, has investigated the case and has duly proved documents prepared during investigation of the case. 20. Dw-1 Constable Girja Prasad Yadav, has stated that on 05.09.1986, on the complaint of Shambhu Prasad Singh, Satyadev and Gopal Singh, a report was lodged by C.I.D. on 24.03.1986 and its report and G.D. entry have been proved by by him as Ex. Kha-1 and Ex. Kha-2 21. So far the contention, that presence of alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti is doubtful, is concerned, it may be seen that both theses witnesses have made clear and cogent statements about their presence at the spot and have narrated entire incident in detail. PW-1 Ramjeet is an injured witness, who has received as many as 11 injuries in the alleged incident and thus, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Merely because the nature of injuries was simple, it would not create any doubt about the presence of these witnesses at the spot. There is nothing to indicate that the injuries sustained by PW-1 were self inflicted. One important fact is that the FIR of the present incident has been lodged by PW-1, naming all the accused-appellants and stating all necessary details of incident. The alleged incident took place on 10.07.1983 at 9:00 AM and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 11:30 AM and distance of the concerned police station from the spot was shown four miles. The alleged incident took place on 10.07.1983 at 9:00 AM and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 11:30 AM and distance of the concerned police station from the spot was shown four miles. Here, it is also to be kept in mind that PW-1 has sustained several injuries and as per his statement, he as well as deceased Jhagaroo were brought from the spot by putting them on cots. In view of these facts, it is clear that prompt first information report was lodged by PW-1. Merely because location of PW-1 and PW-4 was not shown in the site plan, it would not make their presence at the spot doubtful. Similarly, the fact that no Ox was found at spot is of no consequence. It cannot be presumed that Ox would have remained at spot till the Investigating Officer reached there. Once in the FIR, PW-1 has alleged that he as well as his wife were present at the spot and he has also sustained injuries, it was for the Investigating Officer to inquire as to at which particular spot they were collecting grass and to indicate that spot in the site plan and thus, their testimony would not affect due to alleged lapse. Both PW-1 and PW-4 have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but no such substantial fact could emerge, which may create any doubt about their presence at the spot. In view of these facts, there is no ground to doubt presence of PW-1 and PW-4 at the spot and thus, contention of learned counsel has no force. 22. It was argued that PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti are interested and inimical witnesses. It is correct that PW-1 is brother of deceased Jhagaroo, while PW-4 is wife of PW-1, but mere relationship cannot be a factor to doubt testimony of a witness, which otherwise inspires confidence. It is well settled that a natural witness may not be labelled as interested witness. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim. Generally close relations of the victim are unlikely to falsely implicate anyone. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim. Generally close relations of the victim are unlikely to falsely implicate anyone. Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless there is motive to give false evidence to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is alleged and proved. A witness is interested only if he derives benefit from the result of the case or as hostility to the accused. In case of State of Punjab Vs Hardam Singh, (2005) SCC(Cri) 834, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily the near relations of the deceased would not depose falsely against innocent persons so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished, rather the witness would always try to secure conviction of real culprit. In case of Dilip Singh Vs State of Punjab, (1953) AIR SC 364, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the ground that the witnesses being the close relatives and consequently being the partition witness would not be relied upon, has no substance. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harbans Kaur V State of Haryana, (2005) SCC(Cri) 1213. The contention about branding the witnesses as interested witness and credibility of close relationship of witnesses has been examined by Hon'ble Apex court in a number of cases. A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an 'interested witness', as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur V. State of Punjab, (1977) AIR SC 472. The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court. Similar view was taken in case of State of Gujrat v. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel, (1983) AIR SC 839. Similarly, so far as question of non-examination of alleged witnesses, who have reached at the spot, is concerned, it is well settled that prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses of incident. It is the quality and not quantity of evidence which matters. Similarly, so far as question of non-examination of alleged witnesses, who have reached at the spot, is concerned, it is well settled that prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses of incident. It is the quality and not quantity of evidence which matters. PW-1 Ramjeet was a star witness as he sustained injuries in same incident. No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution merely on the ground that all the persons, who reached at the spot have not been examined, particularly when prosecution has produced two eye-witnesses, including the injured witness. In the instant case, as stated earlier, there is nothing to doubt about presence of PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti at the spot of incident. PW-1 himself has sustained injuries in the very same incident, which establishes his presence at the spot. These witnesses have made clear and cogent statement and have even assigned specific role of the accused persons. The version of these witnesses is consistent with the FIR and medical evidence. The incident took place in broad day light and all the accused persons were known to these witnesses since before the incident. There are no grounds that why these witnesses would depose falsely against accused-appellants, sparing the actual assailants. Thus, the contention of learned counsel has no force. 23. It was next argued that prosecution has shifted place of incident from one place to another. In this regard, it was stated that in the FIR, the incident of alleged spot was shown at the field of deceased and complainant, but the sample of blood stained as well as simple soil collected from the spot have not been examined. It was further stated that in his cross-examination, PW-1 Ramjeet has stated that deceased had fallen in the western side of the field but this fact is not consistent with the site plan of the spot. PW-4 Kulwanti has stated in her cross-examination that when the alleged incident took place, the deceased has already ploughed four biswa field and that two biswa field was yet to be plough, but this fact is also not consistent with the site plan. Learned counsel further stated that PW-4 has stated that, at the spot, blood has fallen on the ground but no blood was found at the spot. 24. We find no force in the contention that prosecution has changed spot of incident from one place to another. Learned counsel further stated that PW-4 has stated that, at the spot, blood has fallen on the ground but no blood was found at the spot. 24. We find no force in the contention that prosecution has changed spot of incident from one place to another. It is consistent case of prosecution that at the time of the alleged incident, deceased was ploughing land belonging to him and as per complainant as well as as per site plan also, incident has been shown in the their field. In FIR as well in statements of eye witnesses, substantially, the spot of incident remained same and it also matches with spot shown in the site plan prepared by Investigating Officer. Some part of the alleged field has been shown ploughed, which further supports prosecution case. Merely because the samples of plain and blood stained soil lifted from the spot have not been examined would not give rise to inference that prosecution has shifted or changed spot of incident. Such laxity on the part of Investigating Officer, cannot be a ground to doubt spot of incident, particularly when PW-1 Ram Jeet and PW-4 Kulwanti have made consistent and cogent statements. It has also come in evidence that blood has fallen at the spot, but PW 4 has clarified that it has diminished due to movements of persons. PW 6 SI Dyaram, who investigated the case, has also stated that there were some spot of blood at the scene of offence, however, he admitted that he has not send sample of blood stained soil to FSL. On the point of spot of incident, version of eye witnesses matches with site plan and statement of investigating officer. Merely because some minor variations in peripheral aspect of the spot of incident have emerged in statements of PW-1 and PW-4, it cannot be said that spot of the incident has been changed. Such minor inconsistencies are quite natural in every case, but such inconsistencies do not indicate that spot of incident has been changed. The contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellants has no substance. 25. A contention was raised that accused-appellants were falsely implicated in this case at the instance of S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya, however, there is no material in support of this allegation. The contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellants has no substance. 25. A contention was raised that accused-appellants were falsely implicated in this case at the instance of S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya, however, there is no material in support of this allegation. It is correct that PW-6 S.I. Daya Ram, who has investigated the case, has stated that he has taken charge of police station Mehnagar from S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya on day of incident, but it would not mean that he has acted at the instance of S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya. Even if, S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya was residing in the premises of police station, it cannot be presumed that the Investigating Officer PW-6 Daya Ram has acted at his instance in order to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. Though it has been shown that earlier a complaint was filed against S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya by accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey, but that can also not be a ground to presume that accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the said S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that this case has been lodged on the basis of written report of PW-1 Ramjeet. It is not the case of defence that PW-1 has lodged FIR at the instance of said S.I. Hari Bhajanlal Arya. Even otherwise, in the alleged incident, PW-1 himself has sustained injuries and his brother Jhagaroo was brutally done to death, thus, it can not be imagined that he would falsely implicate the accused-appellants in the alleged incident just at the instance of one police official, who at the time of the alleged incident was even not posted in the concerned police station and that too sparing the actual assailants, who murdered his brother and caused injuries to him. The contention of learned counsel has no substance at all. 26. Close scrutiny of entire evidence on record clearly shows that testimony of PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti could not be shaken in their cross-examination. The version of PW-1 and PW-4 is consistent with the medical evidence as well as with their previous statements. Motive of the alleged incident has also been proved. No substantial reason could be shown as to why these witnesses would depose falsely against accused-appellants, sparing their actual assailants. The version of PW-1 and PW-4 is consistent with the medical evidence as well as with their previous statements. Motive of the alleged incident has also been proved. No substantial reason could be shown as to why these witnesses would depose falsely against accused-appellants, sparing their actual assailants. One of the important aspects of the case is that PW-1 himself has sustained as many as 11 injuries in the alleged incident, which establishes his presence at the spot beyond any doubt. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused. It was held that the fact that witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing could be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Similar view was expressed in the case of Krishan v State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 . Regarding testimony of injured witness, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 513-514 of 2014 Baleshwar Mahto & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., decided on 09.01.2017, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterating the law laid down in case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 , held as under : "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 881 :1973 SCC (Cri) 563: AIR 1972 SC 2593 ], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12 ], Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat,1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696 ], Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113], Bhag Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163], Mohar v. State of U.P., (2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472], Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302], Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P., (2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) "28. ......In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, (1994) Supp3 SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2021] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." 27. When the aforesaid principles are applied in the facts of this case, it would show that the injured witness PW-1, Ramjeet has sustained as many as 11 injuries in incident and he has named all the accused-appellants in FIR, which was lodged, without any undue delay. He has made a cogent and clear statement and his testimony could not be shaken in his cross-examination. As stated earlier, the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law and the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. In the instant case, PW-1 Ramjeet has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing adverse could come out. His version is consistent with medical evidence. No such reasons could be shown as to why he would depose falsely against appellants, sparing the actual assailants. In the instant case, PW-1 Ramjeet has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing adverse could come out. His version is consistent with medical evidence. No such reasons could be shown as to why he would depose falsely against appellants, sparing the actual assailants. The prosecution has also proved motive of the alleged incident. Considering entire evidence on record, the involvement of the accused appellants in the alleged incident is established. Similarly, presence of PW-4 Kulwanti is also established at the spot. She has also made cogent statement regarding involvement of accused-appellants in the incident and she remained firm in her cross-examination. The version of PW-1 Ramjeet Singh finds ample corroboration from testimony of PW-4 Kulwanti. After considering all aspects, the testimony of PW-1 Ramjeet and PW-4 Kulwanti is found credible and inspires confidence. 28. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial court was fully justified in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and accordingly, conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey and Sheshnath Pandey is affirmed. Accused-appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail is cancelled and they be taken into custody forthwith for serving remaining sentence. 29. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 30. Copy of this judgment be sent to Court concerned for necessary compliance.