JUDGMENT S.H. Vora, J. 1. The appellant - Mr. Shankarbhai Bachubhai Baria (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') who has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as per judgment and order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against him. 2. Facts of the prosecution, in short, are as under:- 2.1. Complainant - Mr. Pratapbhai Babarbhai Baria (PW-5) who is resident of village Dhudamali, is father of the deceased Jantaben who got married to the accused about 20 years prior to the incident of her death. Deceased and accused had three children (two sons and one daughter) and at the time of incident dated 14.08.2009, the deceased was carrying pregnancy of six months. 2.2. After marriage, deceased went with the appellant accused for co-habitation. But for last three years of incident, in question, there was allegation that the appellant accused was alleged to have been saying that he was not liking deceased Jantaben and due to this issue, deceased Jantaben left her matrimonial home and started residing with the complainant prior to two months of the incident. 2.3. It is further alleged that on 14.08.2009, when complainant - Mr. Pratapbhai Babarbhai Bariya (PW-5), his son Mr. Vinodbhai Pratapbhai Baria (PW-7), his daughter deceased Jantaben and Jeniben - wife of PW No. 5 were engaged in removing grass at about 11.00 am, the appellant accused came at the field bearing survey number 36 at village Dudhamali and was asking deceased to join him at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that when deceased Jantaben refused to do so, at that point of time, the appellant accused took out knife and gave four blows to the deceased Jantaben and she fell down and in the meantime, Mr. Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) and other persons chased the appellant accused, but he was not nabbed and he ran away. As per further case of prosecution, when deceased Jantaben was taken to hospital, she passed away. Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) and other persons chased the appellant accused, but he was not nabbed and he ran away. As per further case of prosecution, when deceased Jantaben was taken to hospital, she passed away. It is further alleged that the incident in question took place near one neelgiri tree situated in the field of the complainant. 2.4. It is further case of the prosecution that one Mr. Hirabhai informed on phone call that an incident of murder has taken place at village - Dudhamali. Therefore, he deputed one ASI Mr. Kadakiyabhai to village Dhudhamali. Similarly, he informed to Mr. M.S. Vaghela - PSI on telephone about the incident of murder as he was in the office of S.P. Dahod at the relevant time and reduced information into writing in station diary at about 11.45 on 14.08.2009. PW No. 14 took the complaint in writing from the complainant. Thereafter, complaint came to be registered for the offence of murder and Mr. Rupabhai Parmar (PW-13) after registering the offence in station diary transmitted the same to Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) for further investigation. Treating the said complaint as FIR, crime register No. 64 of 2009 for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC was registered against the appellant accused with Dhanpur Police Station on 14.08.2009 at about 14.30 hrs. 3. Thereafter, Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) prepared inquest panchnama and forwarded dead body of the deceased at Dhanpur Medical Hospital for post mortem. He prepared panchnama of scene of offence and also collected incriminating samples from the scene of offence and for examination, he forwarded the samples to FSL. Said PW -14 also recorded statement of eye witnesses who had seen occurrence of scene of incident. Thereafter, the appellant accused was nabbed and arrested. Panchnama was prepared and in his presence, discovery panchnama vide Exh. 15 was drawn on 16.08.2009. Knife and clothes worn by the appellant accused at the time of incident were discovered from open place. Discovery articles viz. knife and clothes were seized in presence of panchas and same were transmitted to FSL for its analysis and report. 4. After completion of investigation, Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) submitted charge sheet in the Court of learned JMFC for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Discovery articles viz. knife and clothes were seized in presence of panchas and same were transmitted to FSL for its analysis and report. 4. After completion of investigation, Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) submitted charge sheet in the Court of learned JMFC for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. As the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC was exclusively triable by learned Sessions Court, learned JMFC committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Dahod which was then hand over to learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod for its trial. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, to which the appellant accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. His defence is total denial and as it appears from the trend of cross examination that he has been falsely implicated in the offence on account of strain relationship with deceased Jantaben and false complaint is filed. No witness in defence has been examined by the appellant accused. 6. Prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses to prove charge against the accused and relied upon inquest panchnama Exh. 7, scene of offence below Exh. 8, PM note Exh. 11, panchnama of body of the accused Exh. 14, discovery panchnama of the weapon and clothes worn by the appellant accused at Exh. 15, FIR at Exh. 19, panchnama of recovery of clothes on the dead body at Exh. 23, station diary below Exh. 30 and FSL report at Exh. 32 and 33. 7. Upon considering evidence adduced and submission made by both the sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod held that the prosecution has proved that death of the deceased was homicidal and the accused has committed her murder and as such held the appellant accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein above by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2011. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant accused has preferred this appeal. The accused has challenged the impugned judgment and order mainly on the ground that learned Trial Court committed error in relying upon evidence of Shri Pratapbhai Babarbhai Bariya (PW-5), Shri Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) and Shri Vinodbhai Pratapbhai Bariay (PW-7) and also further erred in accepting the evidence of PW-7 - Vinodbhai child witness of 11 years. The accused has challenged the impugned judgment and order mainly on the ground that learned Trial Court committed error in relying upon evidence of Shri Pratapbhai Babarbhai Bariya (PW-5), Shri Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) and Shri Vinodbhai Pratapbhai Bariay (PW-7) and also further erred in accepting the evidence of PW-7 - Vinodbhai child witness of 11 years. Learned Trial Court has failed to consider inconsistency in evidence of Shri Pratapbhai Babarbhai Bariya (PW-5) and Shri Vinodbhai Bariya (PW-7) and FIR at Exh. 19 lodged by the complainant. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not examined other independent witnesses though their statements came to be recorded by Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) and thus, investigation was not done in fair manner. Additionally, it is contended that Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) is the person who recorded the complaint, carried out investigation himself till charge sheet is filed. It is contended that though substantial investigation is carried out by him and though he prepared map of place of incident, but he has not produced the same nor collected documents pertaining to land over which alleged incident took place. Learned Trial Court failed to notice that there was no evidence to show that mudammal was handed over to PSO in sealed condition and carried to FSL. No any statement of person carrying muddamal is recorded. 8.1. It is further contended that FIR at Exh. 19 is second FIR. It is contended that place of incident is not proved by the prosecution, as no map is produced showing maize area of the field. No photograph is taken to show that crop of maize was spread over as to what area of land, in view of the fact that dead body was not found near the neelgiri tree, but it was found at the courtyard of complainant's house. It is contended that motive of killing deceased Jantaben was as alleged that the appellant did not like the deceased and he wanted second marriage is not convincing, as much as, if it is so then the appellant accused would not have come to take her back or made a request to resume matrimonial home. Prior to preparation of discovery panchnama Exh. 15, Shri M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) took visit of open place from where alleged weapon i.e. knife was discovered at the instance of the appellant and further panchanama Exh. Prior to preparation of discovery panchnama Exh. 15, Shri M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) took visit of open place from where alleged weapon i.e. knife was discovered at the instance of the appellant and further panchanama Exh. 15 not supported by panchas becomes unreliable piece of evidence. It is contended that FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution and more so, nature of injury indicates that it is not possible with alleged knife and thus, entire prosecution case rests on evidence of interested witnesses with inconsistent evidence. On the above grounds, the accused has prayed to set aside impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and to acquit him of the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC by allowing the appeal. 8.2. In support of above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Ramnadan Singh appearing for the accused has relied upon following decisions:- (i). Prem Narain and Anr. V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007) 15 SCC 485 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8, 9 and 10 has observed as under:- "8. The first informant-Ganeshi Bai in her evidence before the Court gave a completely different picture than disclosed in the First Information Report. The time and place of incident was also changed. According to her before the Court, at about 10 a.m. Peeta (not Prem Narain and Parmeshwar) came to her house and called her husband saying that they want to go to Bareilly. Conversations which purported to have taken place with regard to whereabouts of the deceased in the previous night had not been disclosed. Whereas according to the First Information Report, the deceased started for going to Bareilly after taking his breakfast, he was accosted in the lane by the persons named as accused in the First Information Report; in her statement before the Court she stated Peeta Ram asked her husband to come immediately whereupon Chunni Lal caught hold hand of her husband and dragged him to his house and bolted the outer door. The scene of occurrence thus has changed from lane to the house of Chunni Lal. 9. In her First Information Report, as noticed hereinbefore, she came out of the lane and found the accused persons assaulting the deceased. The scene of occurrence thus has changed from lane to the house of Chunni Lal. 9. In her First Information Report, as noticed hereinbefore, she came out of the lane and found the accused persons assaulting the deceased. In her statement before the Court she stated that she had tried to open the door and having not been able to do so, she purported to see the incident from Bada. In her statement before the Court she disclosed that the incident took place inside the house of Chunni Lal where all the six accused persons were present and they had been assaulting her husband but it was for the first time in her evidence she stated that her son was on her lap and despite the same she was assaulted on her stomach but no injury was found. 10. The defence has been able to bring on records vital omissions and contradictions in her statement made before the Police and her statement before the Court but we need not go into the details thereof. Suffice, it to say that according to the defence the deceased had committed many thefts. He was accused of stealing buffaloes of somebody in the previous night and only on such suspicion he had been assaulted. In view of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of the Ganeshi Bai-P.W. 1, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court as also the High Court committed a manifest error in relying upon her testimony as an eye-witness." (ii) Baby alias Sebastian and Anr. v/s. Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly reported in (2016) 13 SCC 333 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in para 32 and 34 observed as under:- 32. Further the deposition of PW 6 is full of contradictions. On the one hand, he says: ".... Two persons were standing in the field. One among them was searing for something. After a while a head came out of slush. A person wearing shirt again pushed the head into the slush forcibly. A - 1 standing in the dock was the person without shirt, and A -2 is the person who was wearing the shirt who pushed the head into the slush is in the dock". On the other hand, while deposing he says:- "... I had no personal knowledge when I left as to who attached whom." 34. A - 1 standing in the dock was the person without shirt, and A -2 is the person who was wearing the shirt who pushed the head into the slush is in the dock". On the other hand, while deposing he says:- "... I had no personal knowledge when I left as to who attached whom." 34. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that PW 6 has acted in an unnatural manner. In this backdrop this Court is of the opinion that the learned Senior Counsel for both the appellants has rightly pointed out that this unusual behaviour on the part of PW 6 is not telling anyone about the incident of murder which he allegedly witnessed certainly casts a serious doubt upon his testimony. Therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the evidence of PW 6 stating that the same is highly unreliable as it has failed to inspire confidence with regard to the presence of PW 6 at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. Hence, the trial court has rightly held thus: "6... His conduct in immediately not disclosing the fact that he witnessed the murder to anybody casts a suspicion on his veracity. According to PW 6 he had walked 3.5 km at about midnight and reached the place of occurrence when the incident was happening and without making any attempt to prevent the murder he just proceeded to his house still 3.5 km away by walk. In the considered opinion of this court the above evidence of PW 6 does not inspire confidence. It will be highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW 6". (iii) A. Shankar v/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2011) 6 SCC 279 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Head Note G as under:- (G) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 27 - Recovery of weapon - Contradictions - Accused took out scissors, MO 1 in presence of panchas - Major contradiction in statements of witnesses regarding place and manner of recovery - Held, recovery was doubtful - Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302 and 307. 9. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that Vinodbhai Bariya (PW-7) was child witness aged 11 years at the time of incident. 302 and 307. 9. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that Vinodbhai Bariya (PW-7) was child witness aged 11 years at the time of incident. Incident took place at about 11.00 am on 14.08.2009, while this witness was working with deceased Jantaben in the field and both deceased and present witness were removing grass, where accused came and inflicted knife blow on his sister. According to learned APP, said witness narrated reason behind the incident i.e. as there was discord in the marriage, his sister was living with them for some time. Said witness had knowledge of incident and defence is not able to bring anything in the cross examination to doubt any credibility of child witness and further bring any contradictions either from the statement given by child witness or from the oral testimony, therefore, said witness being brother of the deceased cannot weaken the case of the prosecution. As said witness was nearest to the deceased during incident, his testimony is fully creditable and on this ground, conviction should be uphold. Learned APP submitted that other eye witnesses viz. Shri Pratapbhai Bariya (PW -5) and Shri Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) have seen accused running from the field and therefore, their testimony is creditable. According to learned APP medical evidence of PW-2 Dr Ali Mohammed reveals that incident being committed by knife discovered supports oral evidence, more so, knife used in the offence is discovered as per the discovery panchanama Exh. 15 and same is proved through deposition of (PW - 14) though panchas have turned hostile. Lastly learned APP submitted that non availability of map of scene of offence, would not create any doubt either about scene of offence or occurrence of incident in the field. In support of above submissions, learned APP has relied upon following decisions:- 9.1. Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v/s. State of T.N. reported in ( AIR 2013 SC 983 ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Head Note A and B has observed as under:- (A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Interested witness - relative of deceased - Is undoubtedly interested in seeing accused punished - He is interested witness - view that if such relative is most natural witness or is only possible witness he is not interested witness - Needs rethinking. (B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Interested witness - Appreciation of evidence - Evidence of related and interested witness - Ought to be examined with great care and caution than evidence of third party disinterested and unrelated witness. 9.2. Raja Ram v/s. State of U.P. reported in 1991 Criminal Law Journal 3227. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Head Note A has observed as under:- (A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 300 - Murder - Interested witnesses - Credibility - Witnesses, close relative of deceased - No ground to discard their testimony - Veracity and authenticity of testimony is to he judged from attending facts and circumstances. 9.3. Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v/s. State of Gujarat reported in (1994) 2 SCC 685 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Head Note A has observed as under:- (A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 154 - Telephonic message - When constitutes an FIR - Cryptic message given on telephone by a Head Constable that in a fight a person had died and his dead body had been brought to the hospital - Police Officer having received the said message reaching the hospital and recording the statement of the brother of the deceased - Held, statement of the brother of the deceased and not the telephonic message of the Head Constable constituted the FIR. 9.4. Damodar v/s. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 12 SCC 336 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Head Note A has observed as under:- (A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 154 and 162 - FIR - Telephonic message - If could be treated as FIR - DD entry showing that an unknown person had given information on telephone about a vehicle hitting the deceased - Said information, held, did not constitute a FIR - Hence, written report lodged by eyewitness PW - 15, held, was not hit by S. 162 Cr.P.C. 10. Learned APP after relying upon deposition of PW 5 to 7 and 13 and 14 contended that the presence of accused at the relevant point of time and place cannot be disbelieved, when there is no material to show that there was possibility of PW-7 child witness being tutored. According to learned APP, learned Trial Court has rightly believed evidence of PW 5 to 7 and held accused guilty for murder of his wife Jantaben. According to learned APP, learned Trial Court has rightly believed evidence of PW 5 to 7 and held accused guilty for murder of his wife Jantaben. At the end, the learned APP has claimed to dismiss the appeal. 11. We have carefully considered submissions made by learned advocate for the accused and learned APP appearing for the State and with their assistance, we have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to find out whether prosecution is able to bring home charge. There is no dispute that accused and deceased Jantaben were husband and wife and out of their wedlock, deceased had three children and at the relevant time of incident, she was carrying six months pregnancy. It is also not in dispute that deceased Jantaben came to her parental home because of strain relationship with the accused and she started to live with her father at village Dudhamali. It is also not in dispute that death of the deceased is homicidal. Accused in fact does not dispute the same. However, to prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon evidence of PW -2 Dr. Ali Mohammed and PM report vide Exh. 11. PW-2 Dr. Ali Mohammed, who was medical officer at Health Center, Dhanpur at relevant time, has deposed that on 14.08.2009, he received dead body at 6.00 pm and performed PM report on the dead body of deceased Jantaben. He noticed following four external injuries. (1) Incised stab wound over left side abdomen 1' long s’ 2 brand at middle 2' above lambillian level wound has sharp margins and pointed ends. (2) Incised stab would over left side on abdomen at libical level 2' below injury no. 1 length is 1 and 1/2 braw at middle with sharp margins and pointed ends. (3) Blind stab wound on right side of abdomen 1' lens 2' deep in abdomen wall (4) Incised wound over left forearm above left wrist on ventre aspect 1' lens 1/4' broad. 12. According to Dr. Ali Mohammed, above injuries were anti mortem and possible by muddamal knife shown to him. He has further deposed that cause of death is shock due to intended hemorrhage. In the cross examination, his evidence that he noticed above mentioned external injuries on the person of the deceased and as regards, cause of death has remained unchallenged. PM report Exh. 11 also shows that Dr. He has further deposed that cause of death is shock due to intended hemorrhage. In the cross examination, his evidence that he noticed above mentioned external injuries on the person of the deceased and as regards, cause of death has remained unchallenged. PM report Exh. 11 also shows that Dr. Ali Mohammed noticed above mentioned external injuries viz. 1 to 4 as mentioned in column no. 17 of PM note and cause of death of the deceased as mentioned in the PM note is as referred above, as deposed by PW 2 Dr. Ali Mohammed. We hold that death of deceased was because of injury no. 1 and 2 and as such death of deceased was homicidal and learned Trial Court has rightly held so. 13. Now it is to be seen, whether accused is responsible for causing external injury no. 1 to 4 referred above. To prove this fact, the prosecution has relied on evidence of following category:- (i) Evidence of eye witnesses viz. Shri Pratapbhai Babarbhai Bariya (PW-5), Shri Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) and Vinodbhai Pratapbhai Bariya (PW-7 - child witness) (ii) The circumstantial evidence of following nature. (a) Death of the deceased was caused at the field bearing survey no. 36 near Neelgiri tree which was closely seen by Vinodbhai PW-7 child witness. (b) Seizure of knife, as per discovery panchnama Exh. 15, at the instance of accused. (c) Seizure of clothes of accused having blood stains. (d) Motive behind committing offence. 14. Undisputedly, the eye witnesses on whose testimony judgment of conviction and sentence is passed by the learned Trial Judge are PW-5 to PW-7. First informant PW-5 Mr. Pratapbhai Babarbhai Baria (who is father of the deceased Jantaben) in his evidence before the Court gave completely different picture then disclosed in the FIR i.e. complaint Exh. 19. In the complaint, as noticed herein-above, on the date and time, he along with his wife, son and daughter - Jantaben were engaged in removing grass and at that time appellant accused asked Jantaben to join him at matrimonial home and upon refusal by Jantaben, at that point of time, the appellant accused took out knife and gave four blow to the deceased Jantaben and in the meantime, Mr. Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) chased the appellant accused, but he ran away. Manabhai Navalbhai Bariya (PW-6) chased the appellant accused, but he ran away. In the deposition, more particularly, in the cross examination, the complainant stated that he reached the place of incident after 10 to 15 minutes and he further deposed rather admitted that place of incident was not visible, at the most he could see head of the person and not hands. 15. Second eye-witness - Mr. Manabhai Navalbhai Baria (PW-6), who is uncle of deceased Jantaben and real brother of Mr. Pratapbhai (PW-5) deposed before the Court that he heard shouting of his nephew - Vinodbhai (PW-7) and he managed to call 108 ambulance. Admittedly, Mr. Manabhai (PW-6) is handicapped person and by the time, he reached place of incident, it took 15 to 20 minutes. He further deposed that he saw accused running away from the place of incident. In the statement before the Court, said PW -6 deposed that he saw Vinodbhai (PW-7) shouting from the place where he was weeding. PW-7 - Vinodbhai reached there after PW-6 had reached at the place of incident and thereafter, parents of Vinodbhai arrived and saw that the girl (deceased Jantaben) was lying and she was injured. He has specifically admitted that assaulter had fled away. 16. Deposition of PW 5 and PW-6 makes abundantly clear that though both the witnesses claim to be eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident in the statement before the Court, but we find contradictory and inconsistency in their deposition and therefore, it creates serious doubt about truthfulness of the said witnesses. In addition to it, we have noticed other discrepancies i.e. colour of the clothes worn by the appellant accused and also clothes worn by deceased Jantaben and also location of dead body and such other facts. In criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal error of observation or for any good reason, but the Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether such deposition inspires confidence. In the case on hand, the prosecution has placed reliance on deposition of Vinodbhai - child witness (PW-7). In the case on hand, the prosecution has placed reliance on deposition of Vinodbhai - child witness (PW-7). Before we examine evidence of PW-7, who is child witness, it is needs to be kept in mind that it is only rule of prudence to seek corroboration in case of a child witness and it is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that without corroboration, the evidence of a child witness could not be accepted. In other words, the conviction can be based on the solitary evidence of child witness, if it is otherwise reliable and inspires confidence. 17. Upon minutely examining deposition of Vinodbhai -PW-7, we notice that he gave minute details of occurrence, as if incident occurred in front of him. He disclosed the fact that he reached the place where his sister collapsed and thereafter, Mr. Manabhai (PW -6) and his parents came. He has specifically admitted that when PW-5 and PW-6 and his mother reached at the place of incident, the appellant accused was not present and he had fled. He further deposed that he showed the police the height of maize, but no measurement regarding height of maize was taken. He specifically admits that after coming out of farm of maize, he had gone to the place where his sister had collapsed. 18. As noted herein above, though PW-5 complainant claims to be eye witness to the incident in question along with Mr. Manabhai -PW-6, it appears that neither PW 5 nor PW 6 had either seen the occurrence of incident or accused. At the same time, we could see that Vinodbhai - child witness - PW 7 reached the place of incident after PW-6. In that factual background of the prosecution case, though child witness is competent to depose, presence of eye witness at the place of incident is highly suspicious. Based on deposition of PW-5 and PW-6, it seems that child witness came at later point of time i.e. after the incident and therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution so as to make his testimony free from doubt and thus, reliable. Based on deposition of PW-5 and PW-6, it seems that child witness came at later point of time i.e. after the incident and therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution so as to make his testimony free from doubt and thus, reliable. In nutshell, deposition of eye witness PW-5 to PW-7 and on re-appreciation of their entire evidence as it is, the only conclusion which can be drawn is such that PW-5 and PW-6 are not eye witnesses to the incident in question though they claim to be so. Similarly, PW-7 though competent to depose and deposed before the Court as if incident occurred in front of him, but his evidence does not inspire confidence, simply because Mr. Manabhai (PW - 6) specifically admitted that Vinodbhai (PW-7) came at the place of occurrence after he reached there and by the time, accused ran away and PW No. 6 also could not see him, as noted herein above. 19. Now coming to other circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution. We may record here that incident took place in the field of the complainant bearing survey No. 36, more particularly near Neelgiri tree. However, no map is produced showing field of maize area and distance between the field and Neelgiri tree; no photograph is taken to show that crop of maize was spread over as to what area of land bearing survey No. 36 and no documents pertaining to land bearing survey no. 36 are collected where agriculture work was carried out. These, lapses create doubt whether the incident took place near Neelgiri tree or in the house of complainant because dead body was not found near Neelgiri tree, but it was found in the courtyard of complainant's house. In the Court's opinion these are vital omissions and hence, Trial Court committed manifest error in relying upon testimony of PW-5 to PW-7. 20. It is a matter of fact that there was strain relationship between the appellant accused and deceased Jantaben. There was allegation that the appellant accused was alleged to have been saying that he was not liking deceased Jantaben and due to this issue, she left her matrimonial home prior to two months of the incident. Had that been so, we fail to understand as to why appellant accused came at the complainant's place to take back deceased Jantaben. There was allegation that the appellant accused was alleged to have been saying that he was not liking deceased Jantaben and due to this issue, she left her matrimonial home prior to two months of the incident. Had that been so, we fail to understand as to why appellant accused came at the complainant's place to take back deceased Jantaben. In fact, the prosecution has alleged that as the appellant accused was not liking deceased Jantaben, he wanted to have second marriage and therefore, he committed offence in question. Thus, motive as attributed to the appellant accused is not convincing, as much as, if it is so, then the appellant accused would not have come back to take deceased Jantaben or made a request to resume matrimonial home. In this background of the prosecution case, we are required to consider the prosecution case more closely since the learned Sessions Judge has relied on evidence of related witnesses having interest to see that appellant accused is punished on account of enmity. There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relative of the victim, the Criminal Court must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim very carefully. At the same time, the Court is required to keep in mind that a person may be interested in the victim being his relation or otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to the accused. But where witnesses are close relatives of the victim, as in the present case, and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his/her assailant, that makes it necessary for the criminal Court to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinize all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In other words, it is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, then the Court has to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with great care and caution then the evidence of third party disinterested and unrelated witnesses. 21. Before the case is further examined in light of submissions made at bar, it needs to be kept in mind that the prosecution did not thought it fit to examine one Mr. 21. Before the case is further examined in light of submissions made at bar, it needs to be kept in mind that the prosecution did not thought it fit to examine one Mr. Hirabhai who informed on phone call that one incident of murder had taken place at Village Dudhamaii. Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) admitted in para 4 of his deposition recorded below Exh. 31 that he recorded statement of one Mr. Hirabhai who had made phone call to the PSO. Similarly, Mr. Rupabhai Parmar, PSO on duty at Dhanpur Police Station, deputed one ASI of Katu Outpost Shri Kadakiyabhai Lakhabhai to Dudhamali village. Not only that Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) admitted in examination in chief that he recorded statement of eye witnesses residing in surrounding area of place of occurrence. In his deposition, he has also admitted that he had already visited place of occurrence shown by the appellant accused when panchanama of scene of offence was drawn under section 27. He has further deposed that he sent yadi to Prant Officer to prepare map of place of occurrence, but he could not get map prepared and submitted along with charge sheet papers. So appreciation of evidence in the present case requires deeper scrutiny because Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) did everything right, from recording of complaint, till the charge sheet is filed. It would be an infirmity in the case and therefore, credibility of prosecution case would certainly become suspicious. Even otherwise, if this point is overlooked, we see no justification to maintain the order of conviction only on the strength of oral testimony of PW-5 to PW-7 and more particularly of PW No. 7 -Vinodbhai. 22. Mudammal knife allegedly discovered at the instance of the appellant accused as per discovery Panchanama Exh. 15, is found from open place. Although blood was found on sample H - knife, but the blood group could not be decided. Similarly, on clothes i.e. sample I and sample J, no blood was found. Even scientific evidence i.e. FSL report does not lead us to anywhere. However, we may notice that discovery panchanama Exh. 15 is not proved as two panchas have not supported the panchnama. Even Mr. Similarly, on clothes i.e. sample I and sample J, no blood was found. Even scientific evidence i.e. FSL report does not lead us to anywhere. However, we may notice that discovery panchanama Exh. 15 is not proved as two panchas have not supported the panchnama. Even Mr. M.S. Vaghela (PW-14) himself admitted that he has visited the place of recovery of knife under section 27 on previous day and on top of it, there was no blood found on the knife allegedly used by the appellant accused in committing the offence. Therefore, discovery panchnama drawn under section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exh. 15 becomes doubtful. 22.1. With reference to use of muddamal knife, we have carefully examined the evidence of Dr. Alimohammad Jam (PW-2). He could only say that nature of injury could have been caused by muddamal knife. Further, he has deposed that he has not found any injury or marks of abrasion on the rear portion of the dead body. He has further deposed that he has examined front part of legs, fingers, thumbs and nails of the deceased, and not traces of wet or dry soil were found. This is relevant to be considered because it is alleged by the complainant - PW No. 5 in his examination in chief that the appellant accused dragged deceased near Neelgiri tree, but no any marks or injuries either on clothes or body of the deceased were noticed by Dr. Ali PW No. 2. This creates a doubt. 23. One of the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Ramnadan Singh to the effect that FIR Exh. 19 is not an FIR because, Mr. Rupabhai Parmar (PW-13) received message from one Mr. Hirabhai and therefore, said message is FIR as per section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection, we have examined position of law and evidence of Mr. Rupabhai Parmar (PW-13) read with Exh. 30 information reduced to writing in the station diary. The message sent by Mr. Hirabhai is recorded at 11.45 hours and in our opinion same is cryptic message giving intimation about occurrence of murder at Village Dudhamali and thereafter, complaint given by the complainant came to be recorded at 1.45 hours and his signature was taken thereof. So we are not much inclined to take this issue any further and/or accept the case of the appellant accused that Exh. So we are not much inclined to take this issue any further and/or accept the case of the appellant accused that Exh. 19 is not original complaint or 2nd FIR. 24. The off shot of above discussion in light of principles of law settled in case cited at bar by both the sides and upon reassessment and re-appreciation of evidence leads us to hold that PW-5 to PW-7 are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses to the occurrence of incident and further none of the circumstances viz. seizure of knife as per discovery panchnama Exh. 15, seizure of clothes of accused or motive behind committing offence corroborates the prosecution case in any manner or it can be said that none of the circumstances sufficiently corroborates evidence of eye witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove offence under section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant accused and therefore, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court for the said offence against the appellant accused requires to be quashed and set aside. 25. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the judgment and order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2009 convicting the appellant accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant accused is in jail. Since, the appeal is allowed and accepted, the appellant accused shall be set at liberty immediately. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant accused. Registry to send yadi of this judgment and order to the concerned jail authority immediately. Record and proceedings be transmitted to the concerned Court.