JUDGMENT : PRITINKER DIWAKER, J. 1. As these two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 03.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kannauj in Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2006 arising out of crime no. 377 of 2006, convicting the accused persons, namely, Bachchu Lal, Phool Chandra and Dinesh under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-each, respectively and in default of payment of fines, they shall further undergo to six months additional imprisonment with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per prosecution case, on 20.04.2006, deceased Shrawan Kumar alias Bhura son of Rajendra Singh (PW-1) had left his house in the company of his cousin, namely, Ravi (PW-9) to visit the village fair (Mela). When they reached near a tubewell of accused Bachchu Lal, deceased was called inside the pump house by accused Phool Chandra, Dinesh, Bachchu Lal and Umesh (Juvenile). Ravi was asked to wait outside and thereafter, he was further asked to go away from the said place and to visit village fair. When the deceased did not return to his house, he was searched by his father Rajendra Singh (PW-1) on 20.04.2006, 21.04.2006 and later, on 22.04.2006, his dead body was found in the field of Jagdish. Further, case of the prosecution is that on 20.04.2006 itself, Shakuntala wife of Phool Chandra was also beaten in the same pump house by the accused persons, she was taken to hospital and it was disclosed before the doctor that she had suffered injuries while working in thresher. After getting the dead body of the deceased, on 24.04.2006 at 11:05 PM, FIR Ex. Ka-17, was lodged by PW-1, Rajendra Singh against the present three appellants and the juvenile accused Umesh under Section 302/201 of IPC. 3. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 23.04.2006, vide Ex.Ka. 4 and dead body was sent for postmortem, which was done on the same day, vide Ex.Ka.3 by PW-4, Dr Narendra Babu. 4. As per Autopsy Surgeon, following three injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. Incised wound 12 cm x 4 cm x abdominal cavity deep over lt. 4 and dead body was sent for postmortem, which was done on the same day, vide Ex.Ka.3 by PW-4, Dr Narendra Babu. 4. As per Autopsy Surgeon, following three injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. Incised wound 12 cm x 4 cm x abdominal cavity deep over lt. Side of abdomen involving lower chest region 4 cm away from midline and 12 cm above umbilicus. Stomach coming out o/d middle to be of liver and stomach are cut. 2. Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm abdominal cavity deep over lt. Side of abdomen 6 cm below injury no. 1 intestine is coming out and cut. 3. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep 10 cm above umbilicus at 10 o'clock position o/d intestine and liver cut. Abdomen cavity is full of blood mixed with food and faecal matter wound directions are longitudional.” 5. The cause of death of deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 6. On 23.04.2006 itself, injured Shakuntala was medically examined by PW-6, Nanhumal and as many as 11 injuries have been found on her body which are as under: 1. Stitched wound 7 x 0.2 cm scabbed (brown) 1.5 cm above right eyebrow. Margins most probably clean cut. 2. Stitched wound 1x 0.2. cm scabbed on outer angle of right eye. 3. Stitched wound 3 x0.2 cm with scabbed (brown) on posterior aspect of left kose just below elbow. 4. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep with scabbed (brown) posterior aspect of left arm 12 cm above elbow. 5. Incised wound 5 x 0.1 cm x muscle deep with scabbed (brown) on lateral aspect of left kose arm 1 cm below elbow. 6. Multiple stitched wound in an area of 11 x 7 cm with scabbed (brown) palmer aspect of left hand. 7. Incised wound 1 x 0.1. cm x muscle deep with scabbed (brown) on left side of back of chest 1.0 cm below inferior angle of scapula. 8. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2. cm into muscle deep with scabbed 5 cm below injury no. 7. 9. Multiple stitched wound in an area of 18 cm x 10 cm on the left gluteal region and all are scabbed (brown). 10. 8. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2. cm into muscle deep with scabbed 5 cm below injury no. 7. 9. Multiple stitched wound in an area of 18 cm x 10 cm on the left gluteal region and all are scabbed (brown). 10. Two stitched wound in an area of 5 x 0.2 cm with scabbed on posterior aspect of left thy 12 cm above knees. 11. Stitched wound (multiple) in an area of 4 cm x 1 cm with scabbed on palmer aspect of left foot at base of first toe. 7. At the instance of Phool Chandra, from his house, a bloodstained sickle was seized on 09.05.2006 vide Ex. Ka-12, however, there is no FSL report. Vide Ex. Ka-2 one slipper was seized from the pump house of Phool Chandra which has been identified by PW-1, Rajendra Singh to be that of the deceased. 8. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed the charge against all the four accused persons under Section 302/34 of IPC. However, during pendency of the trial, when it was brought to the notice of the court that accused Umesh was juvenile, his case was transferred to the Juvenile Court and the trial court proceeded with the case in respect of accused Dinesh, Phool Chandra and Bachchu Lal. 9. So as to hold the accused-appellants guilty, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case whereas one more witness has also been examined to prove the juvenility of accused Umesh. Statement of the accused-appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication. 10. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Judge has convicted all the accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 11. Counsel for the accused-appellants submits: (i) that there is no eye witness account to the incident and the appellants have been convicted solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence. (ii) that the chain of circumstances has not been completed and, therefore, benefit ought to have been granted to the accused persons. (iii) that there is inordinate delay of two days in lodging the FIR, the deceased went missing on 20.04.2006 whereas the report has been lodged on 22.04.2006. (ii) that the chain of circumstances has not been completed and, therefore, benefit ought to have been granted to the accused persons. (iii) that there is inordinate delay of two days in lodging the FIR, the deceased went missing on 20.04.2006 whereas the report has been lodged on 22.04.2006. (iv) that the conduct of informant, PW-1, Rajendra Singh appears to be very unnatural inasmuch as his son went missing on 20.04.2006 but no report, including the report of 'gumshudi', was lodged by him. (v) that so called chance witnesses PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar and PW-3, Kashmeer Singh, being relative of the deceased, are interested witnesses and their statements are nothing but a bundle of concocted evidence. (vi) that in absence of FSL report in relation to the sickle, seizure of the said article looses its significance. (vii) that injured Shakuntala has not been examined by the prosecution. (viii) that the motive has not been proved by the prosecution. 12. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment and order, it has been argued by the State counsel: (i) that there was strong motive for the appellants to commit the murder of deceased. The deceased Shrawan Kumar was having illicit relation with the wife of accused Phool Chandra, namely, Shakuntala and to eliminate the deceased, the entire exercise has been done by the accused persons. (ii) that present case is not a case where only circumstantial evidence is there against the accused persons but present is a case where PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar and PW-3, Kashmeer Singh saw the accused persons throwing the dead body of the deceased in the field of Jagdish. (iii) that PW-9, Ravi, who had accompanied the deceased from his house, has categorically stated that the deceased was taken inside the pump house and then his dead body was found. (iv) that Shakuntala has not been examined in the Court. However, in her diary statement itself, she had categorically deposed that if she will depose against the accused persons, she would be in difficulty. (v) that the day on which, Shrawan Kumar was murdered, Shakuntala was also brutally beaten by the accused persons which proves the motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. (vi) that recovery of slipper of the deceased from the pump house of accused Phool Chandra is good enough to uphold the conviction of the accused persons. (vi) that recovery of slipper of the deceased from the pump house of accused Phool Chandra is good enough to uphold the conviction of the accused persons. (vii) that though there is no FSL report in respect of the blood found on the sickle but the seizure of the sickle, which has been used for the commission of offence, is sufficient to take as an additional evidence against the accused persons. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. (PW-1), Rajendra Singh, is the father of the deceased and also informant. He has stated that on 20.04.2006, his son, deceased Shrawan Kumar left his house in the company of PW-9, Ravi for having a visit of village fair and from there, he did not return. He states that he made extensive search for his son and then was informed by PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar and PW-3, Kashmeer Singh that dead body of the deceased is lying in the field of one Jagdish and they also informed him that they saw the accused persons throwing the dead body of the deceased. 15. PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar, saw the accused-appellants throwing dead body of the deceased in the field of Jagdish. He has stated that on 21.04.2006, when he was irrigating his field, at about 11:30 PM, he and PW-3 Kashmeer Singh saw the accused persons in the torch light carrying dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag and then throwing the same in the field of one Jagdish. He states that when he and Kashmeer Singh asked them as to what they are doing, they were threatened for the same consequences. In the cross-examination, this witness remained firm and reiterated the entire occurrence. 16. PW-3, Kashmeer Singh is the other witness, who along with PW-2, saw the accused-appellants throwing the dead body of the deceased in the field of Jagdish. His statement is almost similar to that of PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar. 17. PW-4, Dr. Narendra Babu, conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. 18. PW-5, Dhawal Singh, conducted inquest. 19. PW-6, Dr. Nanhumal, did MLC of injured Shakuntala. 20. PW-7, Man Singh Yadav, is an investigating officer, who has duly supported the prosecution case. 21. PW-8, Dhamendra Singh Yadav, has assisted during investigation. 22. 17. PW-4, Dr. Narendra Babu, conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. 18. PW-5, Dhawal Singh, conducted inquest. 19. PW-6, Dr. Nanhumal, did MLC of injured Shakuntala. 20. PW-7, Man Singh Yadav, is an investigating officer, who has duly supported the prosecution case. 21. PW-8, Dhamendra Singh Yadav, has assisted during investigation. 22. PW-9, Ravi, is a cousin brother of the deceased, who accompanied the deceased from his house to have a visit of village fair. He has stated that on 20.04.2006 at about 5:00 in the evening, he left the house of deceased along with him and as soon as they reached to the tubewell of Phool Chandra, all the accused persons came out from the pump house, took the deceased inside the pump house and asked him to go away from the said place and to visit Mela. After returning to home, he informed the incident to PW-1, Rajendra Singh and the deceased was not seen alive thereafter and, ultimately his dead body was found in the field. In the cross-examination, this witness also remained firm. 23. AW-1, Man Singh has been examined to prove the juvenility of the juvenile accused Umesh. 24. Present is a case mainly based on circumstantial evidence. The law in this respect is well settled. 25. In Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, observed as under: “11. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1952 SC 343 ], which is one of the earliest decisions on the subject, this court observed as under: “10. …... It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of AP [(1989) Supp (2) SCC 706], this court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.” 13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ], it was held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 26. In S. Govindaraju v State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 , the Apex Court, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, observed as under: “29. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 of Cr PC to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. (Vide: Munish Mabar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912 ). 31. The prosecution successfully proved its case and, therefore, provisions of Section 113 of the Evidence Act, 1872 come into play. The appellant/accused did not make any attempt, whatsoever, to rebut the said presumption contained therein. More so, Shanthi, deceased died in the house of the appellant. He did not disclose as where he had been at the time of incident. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act may also be made applicable as the appellant/accused had special knowledge regarding such facts, though he failed to furnish any explanation thus, the court could draw an adverse inference against him.” 26. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 20.04.2006, deceased left his house in the company of PW-9, Ravi to visit village fair and on the way near the tubewell of Phool Chandra, all the accused persons met them and took the deceased inside the pump house, whereas PW-9, Ravi was asked to go away from the said place. After the departure of PW-9, deceased was done to death by accused persons by causing several injuries to him. After committing the murder of the deceased, accused persons also severely beaten Shakuntala, wife of accused Phool Chandra and then Shakuntala was taken to hospital. In the hospital also, instead of disclosing correct facts, accused persons informed the treating doctor that Shakuntala had sustained injuries on account of coming in contact with thresher. After committing the murder of the deceased, accused persons also severely beaten Shakuntala, wife of accused Phool Chandra and then Shakuntala was taken to hospital. In the hospital also, instead of disclosing correct facts, accused persons informed the treating doctor that Shakuntala had sustained injuries on account of coming in contact with thresher. On 22.04.2006, accused persons took out the dead body of the deceased wrapped it in a gunny bag and threw it in the field of Jagdish. This part of the incident has been witnessed by PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar and PW-3, Kashmeer Singh and both these witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case. The postmortem report also suggests that the deceased was killed about two days back, i.e. sometime on 20.04.2006. We have no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW-2 and PW-3, who stood firm in the Court and have reiterated as to the manner in which, the incident occurred. 27. Another important witness of the case is PW-9, Ravi, who had accompanied the deceased for village fair and has stated that on the way, near the pump house of Phool Chandra, all the accused persons took the deceased inside the pump house and he was asked to leave the said place. 28. Taking cumulative effect of the evidence of PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar, PW-3, Kashmeer Singh and PW-9, Ravi, it is apparent that it is the accused appellants, who committed the murder of the deceased and threw his dead body in the field of Jagdish. 29. Yet another circumstance which goes against the accused persons is the seizure of slipper of the deceased at the instance of accused Phool Chandra. The said seizure has been duly proved by the prosecution and the slipper has been identified by PW-1, Rajendra Singh, father of the deceased. 30. True it is that there is no FSL report in respect of weapon 'sickle' used in commission of offence but the seizure has been duly proved by the prosecution. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the said seizure can be taken as additional evidence against the accused persons. 31. We find no substance in the argument of the State counsel that Shakuntala, in her diary statement, has deposed that it is the accused appellants, who committed the murder of the deceased and the said statement can be considered by this Court. 31. We find no substance in the argument of the State counsel that Shakuntala, in her diary statement, has deposed that it is the accused appellants, who committed the murder of the deceased and the said statement can be considered by this Court. Shakuntala, admittedly, has not been examined in the Court and conviction of accused cannot be made on the basis of her 161 Cr.P.C. Statement. But her statement at least makes it clear that while making her statement before the police, she had shown the apprehension that if she will appear in the Court, she will face dire consequences at the instance of accused persons. 32. We, further, find no substance in the argument of the defence that motive has not been proved by the prosecution. Very strong motive has been proved by the prosecution where it is alleged that the deceased was having illicit relation with the wife of accused Phool Chandra and, therefore, the accused persons eliminated the deceased and also caused injuries to Shakuntala. Though she has not been examined in the Court but injuries, sustained by her, have been duly proved by medical report, Ex.Ka-8, by PW-6, Dr. Nanhumal. 33. We also find no substance in the argument of defence that PW2, Sanjeev Kumar and PW-3, Kashmeer Singh are being interested witnesses and, therefore, they are not the reliable witnesses. 34. It is well settled principle of law that evidence of an interested witness should not be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. All that the Courts required as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, was that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care. It has to be realized that related and interested witness would be the last persons to screen the real culprits and falsely substitute innocent ones in their places. Indeed there may be circumstances where only interested evidence may be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence takes place at midnight in the house when the only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be the family members. In such cases, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. In such cases, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. But once such witness was scrutinized with a little care and the Court was satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 ; State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456 ; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206 ; Dahari & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256 ; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701 ; Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Jodhan vs. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52 ) 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhakar vs. State, AIR 2018 SC 1372 and Ganapathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2018 SC 1635 relying in its earlier judgments held as under: “18. Then, next comes the question 'what is the difference between a related witness and an interested witness?. The plea of “interested witness”, “related witness” has been succinctly explained by this Court that “related” is not equivalent to “interested”. The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. The plea of “interested witness”, “related witness” has been succinctly explained by this Court that “related” is not equivalent to “interested”. The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. In this case at hand PW 1 and 5 were not only related witness, but also 'interested witness' as they had pecuniary interest in getting the accused petitioner punished. [refer State of U.P. v. Kishanpal and Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 ] : (2008 AIR SCW 6322). As the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses, it would be prudent in the facts and circumstances of this case to be cautious while analyzing such evidence. It may be noted that other than these witnesses, there are no independent witnesses available to support the case of the prosecution.” Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. A witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. A close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole testimony of such witness. (See-Harbans Kaur and another vs. State of Haryana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074; Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835; Sonelal vs. State of M.P., 2008 AIR SCW 7988; and Dharnidhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals, (2010) 7 SCC 759 ). 36. We find no substance in the argument of defence that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence. 36. We find no substance in the argument of defence that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, PW-2 and PW-3 were carrying torch with them and in the torch light, they saw the accused persons throwing the dead body of the deceased. Moreover, as per the information available on the internet, on the date of incident, visibility of moon was 58%. Furthermore, the accused persons were known to PW-2 and PW-3, therefore, also question of their identification becomes easy. 37. The law in respect of identification in dark night by the known witnesses is very clear. 28. In Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, the Apex Court has observed as under: “6....In a dark night ocular identification may be difficult in some cases but if a person is acquainted and closely related to another, from the manner of speech, gait and voice, identification is possible.” 29. In Anwar Hussain vs. The State of U.P. and Anr., the Apex Court has held that “even if there is insufficient light, a witness can identify a person, with whom he is fairly acquainted or is in intimate terms, from his voice, gaits, features etc. Therefore, there is nothing to discard the evidence of PW8 so far as his claim to have recognized the appellant is concerned.” 38. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the considered view that the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC. 39. The appeals have no merit. The same are liable to be and are, accordingly, dismissed. 40. Appellants are already in jail and therefore, no further order is required.