ORDER : These two criminal revision petitions pertain to Katras PS Case No.64 of 2005 which was lodged on 9th March 2005 under sections 452, 323, 324, 341, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Kamal Manjhi who was roped in as an accused in Katras PS Case No. 73 of 2005 gave his fardbeyan on 9th March 2005 before SI Dharmdeo Paswan of Katras PS on the basis of which Katras PS Case No.64 of 2005 was registered against Bhudev Chandra Manjhi, Naren Manjhi and Purnendu Manjhi for committing the offence under sections 452, 323, 324, 341, 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the aforesaid accused persons and they faced the trial on the charge under sections 452/34, 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code – Bhudev Chandra Manjhi was charged also under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Five witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid charges framed against the accused persons – PW5 is the doctor who examined Vimal Manjhi on 9th March 2005. 4. PW5 found the following injuries on the person of Vimal Manjhi: (i) Lacerated wound on scalp 2” x 1/2”, and (ii) Abrasion on left elbow 2” x 2”. 5. In the opinion of PW5, injuries on the person of Vimal Manjhi were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 6. On the same day, PW5 examined Kamal Manjhi on whose person two simple injuries (i) Lacerated wound on scalp 2” x 1” and (ii) Abrasion on left elbow 1” x 1/2” were found to have been caused by hard and blunt substance. 7. The learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused persons for the charge under section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also acquitted Bhudev Chandra Manjhi for the charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The charge under sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were held proved against all the accused persons. 9. Bhudev Chandra Manjhi, Naren Manjhi and Purnendu Manjhi were convicted and sentenced to SI for 15 days for the offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for six months for the offence under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. 9. Bhudev Chandra Manjhi, Naren Manjhi and Purnendu Manjhi were convicted and sentenced to SI for 15 days for the offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for six months for the offence under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. This judgment of conviction was challenged by the convicts in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2016 in which the appellate Court upheld the judgment of conviction of the aforesaid convicts, however, extended benefits of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to them – the order of sentence was set aside. 11. Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioners who are the convicts has challenged the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2016 inter alia on the following grounds: (i) the witnesses are intimately related to the informant (ii) there was proved enmity between the parties (iii) there are vital contradictions in the evidence tendered by the witnesses and (iv) non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. 12. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the informant who has filed Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2016 submits that the appellate Court rightly did not interfere with the judgment of conviction but committed error in law in extending benefit of probation to the convicts. 13. The criminal jurisprudence in India does not recognize relationship of the parties and that is the reason information about commission of a crime can be given to the police even by a stranger. It has long been held in “Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab” (2003) 7 SCC 643 that relationship is not a ground to discard evidence of a witness. 14. In “Sucha Singh” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “13.…. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.” 15. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.” 15. In “Masalti v. State of U.P” AIR 1965 SC 202 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when the Court is confronted with evidence of a related witness the Court is required to examine such evidence with care and caution keeping in mind that such witnesses may be interested in prosecution of the accused. 16. Equally true is the proposition in law that enmity which cuts both sides is generally not a ground to disbelieve evidence of a witness. Insofar as the argument raised as regards contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is concerned, all that is required to be recorded is that every inconsistency, exaggeration and embellishment in the evidence of a witness does not amount to contradiction and unless it is shown to the Court that the inconsistencies, or, exaggerations, or, embellishments in the evidence are such that those cannot be reconciled and have, infact, changed the very foundation of the prosecution case evidence of a witness cannot be disbelieved. 17. It is also true that there is no universal law that in every case in which the investigating officer has not been examined ipso facto prejudice would be caused to the accused person. On non-examination of the investigating officer, in “Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar” (1996) 2 SCC 317 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “23. ............We may also indicate here that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal strait-jacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of Investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial. ..........” 18. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal strait-jacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of Investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial. ..........” 18. Two Courts have appreciated the evidence tendered by the prosecution through five witnesses and in exercise of revisional powers under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others” (1987) 1 SCC 288 this Court would not minutely re-appreciate the evidence on record. 19. Having held so, finding no merit in this petition, Criminal Revision No.469 of 2016 is dismissed. 20. Tested on the aforesaid principles, Criminal Revision No.603 of 2016 filed by the informant also does not merit acceptance and, accordingly, it is dismissed. 21. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through “Fax”. 22. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.