JUDGMENT Dr. A.K. MISHRA, J. - This appeal is preferred by way of a prisoner petition through Superintendent, District Jail, Bhawanipatna vide letter No.73 dated 31.01.2017 against the judgment dtd. 17.9.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Nuapada in Sessions Case No.70 of 2007 convicting the appellant u/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The death was done on 17.2.2007, noon on the village road. Deceased was returning after casting vote. The appellant who was his brother’s son, stabbed him to death with a knife. P.Ws.4 and 6 saw the act of stabbing. The son of deceased, P.W. 2 reached the spot which was in front of the house of P.W. 5. He saw his father lying dead. He went to Kegaon Police Station and lodged the FIR (Ext.1) at 2 P.M. The investigation was set into motion. Inquest over the dead body was conducted so also post mortem examination. On 19.2.2007 the investigating officer (P.W.11) apprehended the appellant from the village, who gave recovery of knife which was seized under Exhibit-4. The appellant was medically examined for the minor injury sustained on his palm. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s.173 (2) of Cr.P.C. was filed. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Appellant faced trial for the charge u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code. After trial, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and passed the sentence stated above. 3. The plea of defence was denial simpliciter. The accused did not advance any explanation for the incriminating circumstances put to him u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. 4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in order to bring home the charges. P.Ws. 2 and 8 are the sons of deceased. P.W. 3 is the widow while P.W. 9 is the brother of deceased. P.Ws. 4 and 6 are the eye witnesses and co-villagers. P.W. 5 is the owner of the house in front of which crime scene was situated. P.W. 12 is the doctor who examined the accused vide his report Ext. 15. P.W. 15 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. P.W. 11 is the investigating officer. The other witnesses are witnesses to seizure, inquest and recovery of weapon of offence. No evidence either oral or documentary is adduced from the side of defence. P.W. 12 is the doctor who examined the accused vide his report Ext. 15. P.W. 15 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. P.W. 11 is the investigating officer. The other witnesses are witnesses to seizure, inquest and recovery of weapon of offence. No evidence either oral or documentary is adduced from the side of defence. The weapon of offence knife is marked as M.O. I. The wearing apparels of the deceased are M.O. II to MO.V. The pant and shirt of accused are M.O.VI and M.O. VII. The blood stained knife was found to have contained blood group, i.e ‘B’ group in ABO system as per serological test report Ext. 13. Learned Sessions Judge, accepted the testimonies of eye witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 6 and supporting evidence of doctor to conclude that accused was the author of the homicidal death of deceased caused by MO-I knife. 5. Learned State Defence Counsel Mr. Sarat Kumar Mekap appearing for the appellant advanced his argument to find fault with the prosecution evidence on the following points :- (i) Related witnesses having prior enmity; and (ii) Perfunctory investigation. 5.(a) In order to buttress his above submission, it is urged that the so-called eye witnesses P.Ws.4 and 6 could not have been relied upon to base conviction as their evidence suffers from inter se inconsistencies and they did not try to intervene at the spot which casts shadow upon their credibility. Nextly, it is urged that the recovery of weapon of offence – knife from the house of appellant cannot be a connecting link when the blood group of accused is not compared to match the blood stains found therein. According to him the infirmity in not matching the blood group of accused with the blood stain found in the weapon of offence is sufficient to corrode the prosecution case and thereby filing of a false case to rope accused for previous enmity is a reasonable probability for which prosecution cannot be said to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5.(b) Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Saswati Patnaik supported the conviction and sentence stating that the reasons given by the lower court establish a full-proof case of murder authored by the appellant. Added to that, the son and widow of the deceased would never leave the real culprit to escape who is otherwise related to them. 5.(b) Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Saswati Patnaik supported the conviction and sentence stating that the reasons given by the lower court establish a full-proof case of murder authored by the appellant. Added to that, the son and widow of the deceased would never leave the real culprit to escape who is otherwise related to them. She drew our attention to the fact that there was no enmity between eye witnesses and the appellant. 6. For recording conviction, great emphasis has been laid upon the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6. Both of them are in the compartments of eye witnesses. On evaluation, it is found that P.Ws. 4, a co-villager, while was at a distance of 20 cubits from the spot, saw accused stabbing deceased Sibaram to death with a knife on the road near the house of P.W. 5. He has also stated that accused had taken away that knife. P.W. 6 testified that while he was accompanying deceased after casting vote, accused stabbed the deceased to death by a knife and out of fear he ran away. P.W. 5 stated that he saw the dead body lying on the road in front of his house when he reached the spot hearing commotion. Learned Counsel for the appellant persuaded us to discard the evidence of P.W.6 as he had stated that out of fear he ran way. On reading of the evidence of P.W. 6 as a whole, one can concur with the view of learned Sessions Judge who had opportunity to see the demeanour of the witness that when accused stabbed and deceased cried, he looked back and then ran way. This is the natural reaction of an ordinary man who saw the nephew stabbing uncle on village road in broad day light. 6.(a) The art of appreciation of evidence of eye witness is the science of testing-reliability. The requirement of reliability depends upon the burden of truth. The testimony of P.Ws. 4 and 6 cannot be disbelieved because they did not intervene in the stabbing. It is natural that when accused stabbed his uncle and ran away with the knife, the time consumed was not sufficient to intervene. What is emerged from the situs of the murder and act of stabbing is that accused had jabbed the deceased but no in a frenzy. It is natural that when accused stabbed his uncle and ran away with the knife, the time consumed was not sufficient to intervene. What is emerged from the situs of the murder and act of stabbing is that accused had jabbed the deceased but no in a frenzy. The eye witnesses are found to have testified in lurid details what they saw. The above witnesses are co-villagers of the deceased and accused. Their testimonies are found natural. Nothing is available to doubt their testimonies. P.W. 4 and 6 having seen the stabbing must have undergone stress. Shock and stress are natural association of real life when one sees the murder by deadly weapon. Their stress-associated conduct must be seen in the backdrop that the deceased and accused are closely related and killing ground is not unfamiliar to their habitat. Corroboration both from medical and post occurrence witnesses, lends assurance that the eye witnesses P.W. 4 and 6, who have no axe to grind are wholly reliable witnesses. Their testimonies are not product of manufactured memory. 6.(b) In the decision report in (2018), 9 SCC 429 in the case of Motiram Padu Joshi and others Vrs. State of Maharashtra, their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court have stated as follows : “15... Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempt to save the deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not acted in a particular manner. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have not acted in a particular manner. 16. We may usefully refer to the case of Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 as under : “6. Yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in not going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment is most unreal. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. We must say that the comment is most unreal. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.” 17. While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case or to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the case. Their evidence cannot be doubted merely because they belong to opposite faction.....” 7. It is indisputable that death of deceased Sibaram Naik on 17.2.2007 was homicidal in nature. The doctor (P.W. 15) has testified to have conducted post mortem on 17.2.2007 over the dead body of deceased Sibaram Naik and found three penetrating wounds and incised wounds to conclude that due to penetrating wounds on vital organs, i.e. heart and lungs, the death was homicidal in nature. His post mortem report was marked as Exhibit-17. On 11.4.2007 he opined that such injuries could have been caused by the weapon of offence knife (M.O.I) which was produced after seizure. The eye witnesses get corroboration from the source of post occurrence witnesses who are the widow, sons and brother of deceased. At this point it may be noted that the F.I.R. (Exhibit-1) was received in the police station at 2 P.M. The informant was P.W. 2, the son of deceased. P.W. 13 stated that he scribed the F.I.R. P.W.3, the widow of deceased stated that while she was rushing to the spot, she found the accused running back to his house and she deputed her son to the police station to lodge F.I.R. P.W. 8, another son of informant, had heard from his mother that accused had stabbed his father and he rushed to the spot. He is a witness to the inquest with P.W. 7, a co-villager. P.W. 11, the investigating officer stated that he went to the spot and made inquest over the dead body on 17.2.2007. 8. Importance of medical evidence is already stated by us. The doctor (P.W.15) has opined that the weapon of offence – knife and caused the injuries found on the vital organ of the deceased. Because of this, the accused and the weapon of offence are connected to the homicidal death of the deceased happened on 17.2.2007 at 12 noon. 9. The fault is found with prosecution for not having explained the injury of the deceased. P.W. 12 vide his report (Ext.15) has stated that on 19.2.2007, on police requisition, he examined the accused and found one sharp cutting injury over the left palm which was simple in nature. The same could have been caused within 72 hours of his examination. It may be seen that accused was arrested on 19.2.2007. The investigating officer (P.W.11) has stated so. He has also testified that after accused led him to discovery of knife from his house, he made seizure and sent the accused for medical examination. Exhibit-6 is the disclosure statement of the accused. There is no evidence that the incident occurred in a particular way, in course of which accused had sustained injury of which fault is attributable to the deceased. This being not the suggestible from the whole gamut of incident, the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injury found on accused after two days of the murder incident. 10. It is strenuously urged to disbelieve the recovery of weapon of offence (M.O.I). Exhibit-6 is the statement of accused recorded u/s.27 of the Evidence Act and Exhibit-4 is the seizure list in respect of the knife which was blood stained. In order to satisfy, we refer to the case diary and found that at 4 P.M. on 19.2.2007 the accused was arrested and seizure was made at 4.15 P.M. The learned lower court has rightly taken the fact that accused had given recovery of knife as distinctly related to the arena of legal evidence. In the decision reported in (2018) 6 SCALE – 16 in the case of Navaneethakrishnan Vrs. The State by Inspector of Police their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court have discussed the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as follows : 21..... In the decision reported in (2018) 6 SCALE – 16 in the case of Navaneethakrishnan Vrs. The State by Inspector of Police their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court have discussed the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as follows : 21..... xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx In Madhu vs. State of Kerala (2012) 2 SCC 399 , this Court while discussing the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act , held as under : “49. As an exception, Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that a confessional statement made to a police officer or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against him, if the same leads to the discovery of an unknown fact. The rationale of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is, that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance under the exception postulated by Section 27 aforesaid, is limited”... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered....”. The rationale behind Section 27 of the Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional statement. And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search, Section 27 aforesaid has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. (22) Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only of the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance is limited as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. In view of law stated above, the concealment of weapon of offence (M.O.I) was within the knowledge of accused, is admissible as a new fact and that much of evidence has been accepted by the learned lower court. 11. Finger has been pointed out towards investigation urging that the blood group of accused have been matched with the blood group found on the seized knife and wearing apparels of the deceased and the Investigating Officer having failed to do so, can be said to have not brought the best evidence to prove guilt. 11. Finger has been pointed out towards investigation urging that the blood group of accused have been matched with the blood group found on the seized knife and wearing apparels of the deceased and the Investigating Officer having failed to do so, can be said to have not brought the best evidence to prove guilt. Facts remain proved that the wearing apparels of the deceased, the knife as well as soil from the spot were found to have contained ‘B’ group blood vide serological test report Exhibit-13. The pant and shirt seized from the accused was made after his arrest vide Exhibit-5 which was after two days of the occurrence. When the weapon of offence is connected to the murder of the deceased by blood matching found on knife and wearing apparels of deceased, there was no obligation on the part of Investigating Officer to match the blood group of accused with the blood group found on the weapon of offence. Omission in this regard is not suppression of evidence. 12. The F.I.R. Exhibit-1 discloses that there was a civil dispute between the parties. The son of deceased has proved the F.I.R. P.W. 2, the son of deceased has admitted prior enmity with the accused. Enmity is a double edged weapon. It can be motive for violent reaction. May also be it to foist a false case. In the case at hand, it can be inferred with all reasonable certainty that the violent overt act of accused in stabbing the deceased was motivated by prior enmity. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar vrs. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644 was pleased to observe in paragraph as follows : “In each and every case it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds on the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the Court to circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence.” 13. The evidence of eye witnesses has not been eroded in any manner. Rather it’s forensic worth has been enhanced by the corroboration from medical and serological report. 14. On last lemma, it can be said that the related witnesses are not expected to allow the real culprit to go scot free and rope an innocent. 15. There being no doubt from any corner regarding the authorship of accused in committing murder of deceased on 17.2.2007 by stabbing, the prosecution is found to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The JCRLA stands dismissed. S.K. MISHRA, J. JCRLA dismissed.