JUDGMENT : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Bhadra District Bikaner qua the present appellant may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.” 2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.07/2012 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Pratap @ Pratap & Anr.), whereby the present accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below: Conviction under Section Sentence Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- (each of the accused-appellants), in default to undergo further One Year’s (each of the accused appellants) R.I. 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 25.02.2012, one Brijlal (complainant) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station, Godamedi, stating therein that his son, namely Narendra Kumar alongwith his wife (Suman) was living separately from the complainant, and accused-appellant Suman (wife of complainant’s son) was having an illicit relationship with one Rampratap @ Pratap (accused-appellant). It was further stated that the said relationship was objected several times by the complainant’s son, the complainant himself and one Dholuram (another son of the complainant), and despite Panchayat being held, the said relationship between accused appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap & Suman continued. 3.1. It was also stated that on 25.02.2012 at around 01:00 pm, on hearing the cries of the complainant’s son Naresh, the complainant and his son Dholuram reached the house of Nareshand found that a wire rope (taar ki rassi) was around the neck of Naresh at the instance of accused-appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap and Suman (wife of Naresh), and they were strangulating the neck of Naresh by the said wire rope. On hearing the shouts of the complainant and his son Dholuram, the accused-appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap and Suman fled away from the said house, whereafter they went near Naresh and found him dead. 3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case bearing No.36/2012 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. On hearing the shouts of the complainant and his son Dholuram, the accused-appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap and Suman fled away from the said house, whereafter they went near Naresh and found him dead. 3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case bearing No.36/2012 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused-appellants. 3.3. On 05.06.2012, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants under Section 302/34 IPC; the same upon being read over to the accused-appellants, were denied by them and they claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced. 3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 13 witnesses and exhibited 1-34A documents; in defence, 02 documents were exhibited for examination. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused-appellants stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. 3.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the present accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellants. 4. Mr. Jubin Mehta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellants submitted that the testimonies of the three eye witnesses clearly shows the contradictions wherein, inasmuch as PW.1-Ajay was, at the relevant time, aged 8 years and his statement clearly reveals that he was a tutored witness, as his version was exaggerated and influenced by his grandparents. Therefore, his testimony was not reliable. It was further submitted that when PW.1 cried, at that time only the other two eye witnesses i.e PW.2-Brij Lal & PW.3-Dholu heard his voice and no one else had come, which in the given circumstances, also casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story. 4.1. It was further submitted that PW.1 stated that he saw the incident through a bulb in a School located opposite to their house, however, no school has found as per the site map prepared by the police authority, and therefore, this shows that PW.1 was influenced by his grandparents. 4.2. 4.1. It was further submitted that PW.1 stated that he saw the incident through a bulb in a School located opposite to their house, however, no school has found as per the site map prepared by the police authority, and therefore, this shows that PW.1 was influenced by his grandparents. 4.2. It was also submitted that PW.11-Laxminarayan was the only independent witness and stated that the distance between the house of deceased and house of PW.2 & PW.3 was 1.5 kms., and in such circumstance, as per PW.2 & PW.3, they have heard the voice of PW.1, whereupon immediately they reached to the place of incident in question and saw the accused-appellants murdering the deceased, which version, in the given circumstances, does not hold any ground, more particularly, when allegedly the voice of PW.1 was coming from a far distance. 4.3. It was further submitted that the manner in which the investigation was conducted, was grossly erroneous, because at the time of recovery of the weapon (Wire), two constable were made as witnesses (motbirs), which shows that there was no independent witness to the said recovery. It was also submitted that no FSL report as regards the blood on that wire was produced before the learned Trial Court during the trial. 4.4. It was further submitted that no neighbour, no family member of accused-Pratap @ Ram Pratap has been produced as witness, nor any kind of examination has been done at the instance of the prosecution, which also shows that the prosecution story is completely fabricated and concocted, so as to falsely implicate the present accused-appellants in this case. 4.5. It was also submitted that though as per the prosecution, there was an illicit relationship between the accused-Pratap @ Ram Pratap and accused-Suman (wife of deceased) but in support of the same, no reliable evidence has been produced by the prosecution, which makes it clear no motive was on part of the appellants to commit the crime in question. 4.6. It was further submitted that as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/30), there was no injury around the neck of the deceased, and neither any marks were found on his skin, nor any blood was recovered from the weapon (wire). It was also submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 13 hours. 4.7. 4.6. It was further submitted that as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/30), there was no injury around the neck of the deceased, and neither any marks were found on his skin, nor any blood was recovered from the weapon (wire). It was also submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 13 hours. 4.7. It was also submitted accused-appellants are behind the bars since 26.02.2012 i.e. in custody for last more than 12 years. 4.8. In support of the such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 553/2012, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 05.07.2023); (b) Chiranji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 428/1985, decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 24.08.1987); and (c) Saudan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633/2021, order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court). 5. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Gurjar, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants, submitted that there were three eye-witnesses of the incident in question, and all of them have completely supported the prosecution story. 5.1. It was further submitted that as per the eye witnesses, they saw the accused-appellants committing the murder of the deceased, owing to the illicit relationship between the accused-appellants, which has been seriously objected, at the relevant time, by the deceased. 5.2. It was also submitted that PW.1, at the time relevant time, was aged 8 years and is the son of the deceased and accused-Suman, who had clearly stated that the accused-appellants committed the crime in question, and the manner in which such testimony was rendered, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that he was influenced by any other person or the prosecution, more particularly, looking into the fact that the said testimony was consistent and without any contradiction. It was further submitted that the police authority recovered the weapon (Wire), on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants. 5.3. It was further submitted that the police authority recovered the weapon (Wire), on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants. 5.3. It was also submitted that the accused-appellants did not produce any defence witness, nor any explanation was furnished by them, in defence, at the time of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the entire incident happened during midnight, and therefore, the delay of 13 hours in lodging of the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. 5.4. It was also submitted that PW. 12-Dr. Vijaypal Yadav completely supported the prosecution story and stated that the injuries were caused to the deceased due to strangulation and not by hanging. Thus, the learned Trial Court duly considered the said aspect of the matter, amongst others, and also duly appreciated the material and evidence placed on record before it, prior to passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and thus, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeals. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-appellants is that they committed the murder of the deceased and vide the impugned judgment, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as above. 8. This Court further observes that there were three eye witnesses in the present case, namely, PW.1 Ajay, (Son of deceased and accused-Suman), PW.2-Brijlal (Father of deceased) and PW.3-Dholu (Brother of deceased). 8.1. A perusal of the testimony of eye witness PW.1, who, at the relevant time, was 8 years, shows that he was present at the time of incident in question and that he stated that when the deceased woke up and went for nature call, the said witness heard the deceased’s shouts, whereupon, the said witness woke up and saw that accused-appellant-Suman (his mother) held hands of the deceased while accused-Ram Pratap @ Pratap was sitting over the waist of the deceased, putting a wire (weapon) around the deceased’s neck and was pulling up the deceased. Upon witnessing this, the said witness started crying loudly, on which his grandfather (PW.2) and Uncle (PW.3) came, and on seeing them, the accused-appellants ran away from the place of incident. 8.2. Upon witnessing this, the said witness started crying loudly, on which his grandfather (PW.2) and Uncle (PW.3) came, and on seeing them, the accused-appellants ran away from the place of incident. 8.2. This Court also observes that a perusal of the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3, reveals that when they heard the voice of PW.1, they immediately came his house and saw the accused-appellants strangulating the deceased by wire (weapon), that was found around the neck of the deceased, and when the said witnesses intervened such act, the accused-appellants run away, immediately whereafter, the said witnesses found Naresh (deceased) dead. 8.3. This Court further observes that as per his testimony, the eyewitness PW.1 clear saw the accused-appellants causing death of the deceased, and though, the said testimony may be having some minor contradictions, the same have no adverse bearing on the trustworthiness of such testimony, and that, the other two eyewitnesses i.e. PW.2 and PW.3 have also fully supported the prosecution story and there was no material contradiction in their version. This Court also observes that PW.1, was present at the place of incident prior to occurrence thereof, and thereafter, PW.2 & PW.3 came later and all the three, saw the accused-appellants committing the crime in question, which in the given circumstances cannot be said to be suffering from any material contradiction, and therefore also, the contention of the accused-appellants that there was no light near the place of incident, which could have enabled the prosecution witnesses to have seen the accused-appellants committing the crime in question, does not hold any substantial ground. 8.4. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 as hereunder: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 9. This Court also observes that accused-Suman stated that at the time of incident in question, she was in another village namely, Gigorani and after coming to know about the incident, she returned back to her matrimonial home (deceased-husband’s house) with her children alongwith her father; and accused-Ram Pratap @ Pratap, who at the relevant time, took a plea that at the relevant time, he was away in District Hisar (Haryana) in connection with a marriage, but the said plea of alibi does not hold any ground because the accused-appellants have not produced any evidence in support of such plea, and to disprove their present at the place of incident in question, at the relevant time, and that eyewitnesses have clearly deposed to have seen the accused-appellants committing the crime in question. 10. This Court further observes that on the basis of the information given by accused-Ram Pratap @ Pratap, the wire (weapon of murder) was recovered by the police authority from the room of the accused vide Ex.P/20 and the same was supported by the witnesses (motbirs) PW.6-Rajesh Singh and PW.7- Praveen Kumar. 10.1. This Court also observes that as per the testimony of PW.13-Indra Kumar, who was the investigation officer in the case, he arrested the accused-appellants, and thereafter, recovered the wire (weapon) on the basis of the information of the accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Pratap, and has also completely supported the prosecution story. 11. This Court further observes that accused-Suman and accused-Ram Pratap @ Pratap were having relationship in question and the said version was fully supported by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the accused-appellants, owing to such relationship, in the given circumstances, were having the intention to cause death of the deceased. This Court also observes that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 13 hours, the incident happened in midnight (24.02.2012-25.02.2012), and apart from the above and looking into the fact that accused-Suman is the daughter in law of the complainant and wife of the deceased, such delay in lodging the lodging the FIR does not adversely affect the prosecution case. 12. 12. This Court finds that the deceased’s postmortem (Ex.P/30) was conducted by PW.12-Dr.Vijaypal Yadav, and during the testimony before the learned Trial Court, he stated that a total of 5 injuries were caused to the deceased and injury no.5 was caused on neck, which could not have been caused by hanging; the said injury could have been caused only due to strangulation. He further stated of having found blood coming out of the mouth and nose of the deceased, as a result of strangulation. This Court also observes that looking into the postmortem report as well as testimony of PW.12, it is clear that the death in question was not caused by hanging, and thus, was a planned murder of deceased, and the said crime was committed by the accused-appellants. 13. This Court further observes that looking into entire evidence, i.e. three eye witnesses, recovery of Wire (used for committing the crime in question) from accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Pratap, illicit relationship in question resulting into creation of intention to commit the crime in question, and the postmortem report as well as testimony of PW.12-Dr. Vijaypal Yadav, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment conviction and order of sentence against the accused-appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC. 14. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the accused-appellants do not render any assistance to their case. 15. Thus, on the basis of above analysis of the documentary and oral evidence produced on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned conviction, as recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment, has gone through the evidence carefully and we have also undertaken the same exercise, and in our opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever, in coming to the conclusion that the accused-appellants had committed the crime in question 16. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed, and accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned Trial Court in Session Case No.07/2012 is upheld. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith. 17. This Court is thankful to Mr. Jubin Mehta, who has rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-appellants, in the present adjudication.