JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. Case No.78 of 2010, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted in connection with S.C. Case No.78 of 2010, arising out of Maheshpur P.S. Case No.33 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.275 of 2010 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month under Section 341 IPC, R.I. for 6 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for 2 years under Section 324 of the IPC, R.I. for 7 years under Section 307 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and R.I. for life under Section 302 of the IPC, with fine of Rs.2,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged altercation has taken place in presence of several persons but no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. All the witnesses are related to each other, thus their testimony should be discarded. The statement of the informant is not to be believed as because the informant is the daughter of the deceased and since there was a dispute with her in-laws they all have been roped in this case. It is submitted that the medical evidence does not support the version of any of the alleged eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no motive to commit murder and the murder weapon was also not recovered and produced before the Court. On this basis, acquittal is sought for. 3. Learned APP opposes and submits that just because the witnesses are related to each other that does not mean that the prosecution case is false. The eye-witnesses have stated that this appellant and others have assaulted the deceased and committed her murder. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case and there are eye witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Thus, as per the State, this Appeal needs to be dismissed. 4. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the First Information Report lodged by the informant-Rashida Bibi, is that on 02.05.2010 at about 12:30 P.M., when she was at her matrimonial house, a scuffle was going on near her house. Thus, as per the State, this Appeal needs to be dismissed. 4. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the First Information Report lodged by the informant-Rashida Bibi, is that on 02.05.2010 at about 12:30 P.M., when she was at her matrimonial house, a scuffle was going on near her house. At that time, the informant was in her room when her mother-in-law came to her and told her to accompany them and participate in the scuffle, which she denied, upon which her in-laws i.e. husband (Shahjahan Seikh), father-in-law (House Seikh), mother-in-law (Anima Bibi), elder brother-in-law (Jiyaul Seikh), father-in-laws namely Abdul Wari and Abdul Lakhu Seikh, started beating her. She ran towards her paternal home which is near her matrimonial home, when her husband armed with knife came along with his family members running towards her. When she reached close to her house, her husband armed with knife, with an intention to kill her, started attacking her as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and started screaming. When her mother came out of her home and tried to save her, then her above named in-laws told her husband to kill the old lady, upon which her husband with the knife in his hand stabbed on the chest of her mother two times, as a result of which her mother fell down and succumbed to death. The informant hid herself in a nearby house. Thereafter all persons fled away from there. On the basis of the fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was lodged being Maheshpur P.S. Case No.33 of 2010 under Section 323, 341, 326, 307, 302 & 34 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant Shahjahan Seikh only and the investigation in respect of other accused persons named in the F.I.R. were kept pending. 5. After filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. Thereafter, the case was committed to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur, where charge was framed under Section 341, 323, 326, 307, 302 of IPC. 6. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution who are as follows:- I. P.W.-1 :- Hasibul Seikh II. P.W.-2 :- Ansarul Seikh III. P.W.-3 :- Samsul Seikh IV. P.W.-4 :- Mosibul Seikh V. P.W.-5 :- Khairul Hasan VI. P.W.-6 :- Moed Seikh VII. P.W.-7 :- Rashida Bibi VIII. P.W.-8 :- Dr. 6. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution who are as follows:- I. P.W.-1 :- Hasibul Seikh II. P.W.-2 :- Ansarul Seikh III. P.W.-3 :- Samsul Seikh IV. P.W.-4 :- Mosibul Seikh V. P.W.-5 :- Khairul Hasan VI. P.W.-6 :- Moed Seikh VII. P.W.-7 :- Rashida Bibi VIII. P.W.-8 :- Dr. R.K. Choudhary IX. P.W.-09 :- Dr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh X. P.W.-10 :- Satyendra Narayan Singh 9. P.W.-1 namely Hasibul Seikh, deposed that on the date of incident he got an information that his mother had been killed. When he reached hospital, he came to know from his sister that Shahjahan Seikh and Jiyaul Seikh have killed her mother. He deposed that her sister had injury on her arm, neck and chest and he also saw injury on the chest of his mother. Anima Bibi and House Seikh caught hold of her mother and sister and Abdul Wari and Abdul Lakhu instigated the appellant and Jiyaul Seikh to kill his mother. P.W.-2 namely Ansarul Seikh, deposed that when he was coming after closing his shop, he saw Shahjahan Seikh and Jiyaul Seikh assaulting his mother by knife. They first assaulted his mother on chest and secondly on ribs. He stated that House Seikh and Renu Bibi had caught hold of his mother and Latif, Wari and Lakhu were telling them to kill his mother. As a result of the assault, his mother died on spot. His sister also sustained injuries on both her arm, neck and chest. P.W.-3 namely Samsul Seikh, deposed that he saw Shahjahan Seikh and Jiyaul Seikh having knife in their hand. Both of them assaulted the wife of Shahjahan with knife on her body. When the mother-in-law of Shahjahan went to save her, they assaulted her also, due to which, she fell down on floor and succumbed to death. P.W.-4 namely Mosibul Seikh, deposed that when he was at Murgadanga, he got information about a scuffle in his house. He rushed to the place of occurrence, and saw that Shahjahan Seikh, Jiyaul Seikh, were assaulting his sister. His sister sustained injuries on her neck and hand. He deposed that Shahjahan stabbed his mother on her chest resulting in her death. Anima Bibi and House Seikh were holding her mother and sister during assault and Abdul Latif, Abdul Wari, and Abdul Lakhu were instigating the appellant and Jiyaul Seikh. His sister sustained injuries on her neck and hand. He deposed that Shahjahan stabbed his mother on her chest resulting in her death. Anima Bibi and House Seikh were holding her mother and sister during assault and Abdul Latif, Abdul Wari, and Abdul Lakhu were instigating the appellant and Jiyaul Seikh. In cross-examination, he stated that there was no man present during assault and only 7-8 women were present whose name he cannot tell. P.W.-5 namely Khairul Hasan, deposed that when he was at home, he heard scream. Upon hearing scream, when he reached the place of occurrence. He saw Anima Bibi and House Seikh holding mother of the informant and Shahjahan along with Jiyaul with knife were assaulting mother of the informant and Abdul Wari and Abdul Lakhu were directing to kill her. The deceased sustained injury on her chest, as a result of which she fell down on floor and succumbed to death. Again on hearing halla he reached the place of occurrence and saw that the informant also sustained injury and she also fell down on ground. In cross-examination, he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw, Dena Latif Seikh, Kheletun Bibi, Kudhni Kunai, Akluma Bibi, Ahmeda Bibi, Badal Kunai and others who were present there. P.W.-6 namely Moed Seikh, who is a hearsay witness, deposed that after getting information about the incident, when he reached hospital, he saw her niece (informant), stating to the police that Shahjahan Seikh, Jiyaul Seikh have assaulted his niece and his sister. He saw injury over the neck, shoulders and chest. P.W.-7 namely Rashida Bibi, who is the informant in this case, deposed that when she was at her matrimonial house, a scuffle was going on near her house. At that time, the informant was in her room when her mother-in-law came to her and told her to accompany them to participate in the scuffle, which she denied, upon which her in-laws i.e. husband (Shahjahan Seikh), father-in-law (House Seikh), mother-in-law (Anima Bibi), elder brother-in-law (Jiyaul Seikh), and uncle -in-law namely Abdul Wari and Abdul Lakhu Seikh, started assaulting her. Thereafter when she fled to her mother’s house, her in-laws chased her to the door of her mother’s house and started beating her. She states that Shahjahan Seikh and Jiyaul Seikh assaulted her with dagger and knife. When she screamed, her mother came to rescue. Thereafter when she fled to her mother’s house, her in-laws chased her to the door of her mother’s house and started beating her. She states that Shahjahan Seikh and Jiyaul Seikh assaulted her with dagger and knife. When she screamed, her mother came to rescue. Then they caught hold of her mother and they stabbed her on the chest, as a result of which her mother fell down and succumbed to death. Abdul Barik, Abdul Lakhu Seikh, Abdul Latif Seikh, instigated the appellant and Jiyaul Seikh. The neighbour tried to save but those person threatened them. In her cross-examination she stated that during the occurrence, Mukhtar Seikh, Shatikul Seikh, Alim Seikh, Sobha Kunai, Prabhat Kunai, Aasis Kunai, Anant Kunai, Panchu Kunai, Bajle Kunai, Kanhai Kunai, Mustafa Seikh and others were present. P.W.-8 namely Dr. R.K. Choudhary, who performed the post-mortem of the body of the deceased, deposed that he made following observations about history of killing by stabbing by knife on the chest. He found the following :- “External Injury: (1) Sharp cutting wound present on mid chest (2) Above the right chest. On examination, stab wound noticed. Another stab wound above left clavicular area. The third stab wound found on right mid chest going to the right lungs. On dissection:- chest – right lung raptured and left side heart found empty. Multiple ribs shivered by the knife. Left lung also raptured. Abdomen:- liver, spleen and other visceras are found pale. Stomach :- Semi digested food (with rice) Time elapsed since death:- 15 to 20 hours. Brain: all lobes pale. Rigor mort is present.” In his opinion the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the injuries are not possible by hard and blunt substance. During autopsy he found fracture of ribs, but he stated that it was not fracture, rather severed. The injuries might be caused by a single weapon. He did not find any fracture of bone on the body of the deceased. He had found penetrating wound also but he has not used the word “penetrating.” P.W.-9 namely Dr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, is the Doctor, who examined Rashida Bibi (informant injured), deposed that he found following injuries:- 1. “Incised wound on rightarm 4 “x xxx 1/2”x skin deep 2. Incised wound both side neck with regular margin 1 “x1/2” 3. Injury mid neck 1 “x 1/4”x skin deep 4. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, is the Doctor, who examined Rashida Bibi (informant injured), deposed that he found following injuries:- 1. “Incised wound on rightarm 4 “x xxx 1/2”x skin deep 2. Incised wound both side neck with regular margin 1 “x1/2” 3. Injury mid neck 1 “x 1/4”x skin deep 4. Injury on back of neck 3 “x1/2” 5. Age of Injury:- within 4 hours.” In his opinion, all four injuries are simple in nature and caused by sharp weapon. In his cross-examination he submits that all the injuries can be possible by one sharp weapon. He further submits that at the time of examination, Rashida Bibi was not unconscious. P.W.-10 namely Satyendra Narayan Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who stated that he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, in Primary Health Clinic, Maheshpur, which was marked as Ext.1/B. Formal F.I.R. was marked as Ext.4. He has recorded the re-statement of the informant. He had gone to the place of occurrence i.e. village Khapur, where he found that the dead body of the deceased was lying. There was blood stains around the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report which was marked as Ext.5 and thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem. Thereafter he recorded the statement of several witnesses. After concluding the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. 10. Several documentary evidences were also exhibited which are as here under:- i. Ext.-1/A :- signature on Fardbeyan. ii. Ext.1/B :- F.I.R. iii. Ext.2:- Postmortem report iv. Ext.3:- Injury Report v. Ext.-4 : formal F.I.R. vi. Ext.-5:- Inquest Report 11. The defence has not examined any witness on his behalf. The examination of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused denied to each and every incriminating circumstances which have been put to him. 12. After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record, the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, held the accused-appellant guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. 13. This case is based on testimony of eye-witnesses P.W.-2, P.W.3-, P.W.-4, PW5 and PW7. If I scrutinize the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 they all stated that they had seen this appellant Shahjahan Seikh along with Jiyaul Seikh assaulting the deceased with the knife. 13. This case is based on testimony of eye-witnesses P.W.-2, P.W.3-, P.W.-4, PW5 and PW7. If I scrutinize the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 they all stated that they had seen this appellant Shahjahan Seikh along with Jiyaul Seikh assaulting the deceased with the knife. They all stated that they had seen this appellant assaulting the deceased on the chest and on ribs by knife. The doctor P.W.-8, who conducted the post-mortem, found sharp cut wound on mid chest and above the right chest. There were stab injures. Thus medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence. There is nothing in the evidence of these eye-witnesses to discredit them. PW5 Kairul Hassain also stated that the informant also sustain injury. The informant is PW7. She stated that when she did not agree with her in-laws to enter into an altercation which was going on near their house, her in-laws and the appellant assaulted her, she in order to save herself took shelter in the house of her mother where these persons assaulted her and her mother also. Shahjahan Seikh assaulted her with dagger and when her mother came to rescue her, her mother was stabbed on her chest. PW9 is the doctor who has examined the informant Rasida Bibi (P.W.-7). He found incised wound on the arm and several incised wound on the neck. Thus, the fact that PW7 was injured in the said attack has also been proved by the doctor. PW6 who had not seen the occurrence but had reached the hospital on getting information about the occurrence has stated that he saw mark of injury on the informant and the injury was on the neck, shoulder and chest. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jodhan v. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 52 , has held that the testimony of injured witness always stands on the higher pedestal than the other witness. Para-28 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “28. Tested on the backdrop of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has fallen into error by placing reliance on the evidence of the said prosecution witnesses. Para-28 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “28. Tested on the backdrop of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has fallen into error by placing reliance on the evidence of the said prosecution witnesses. The submission that when other witnesses have turned hostile, the version of these witnesses also should have been discredited does not commend acceptance, for there is no rule of evidence that the testimony of the interested witnesses is to be rejected solely because other independent witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution have turned hostile. Additionally, we may note with profit that these witnesses had sustained injuries and their evidence as we find is cogent and reliable. A testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than other witnesses. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262], it has been observed that: (SCC p. 271, para 28) “28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.” It has been also reiterated that convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Be it stated, the opinion was expressed by placing reliance upon Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 563] , Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919] , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107]” 15. In this case, I find that P.W.-7 is the injured witness and there is no doubt on her credibility on the point of her sustaining injury, as all the witnesses including the medical evidence supports the injury sustained by her. This PW7 who is the informant stated that how she was assaulted by her in-laws including this appellant and when she tried to save herself she rushed to take shelter in the house of her mother. Her mother came to save her when this appellant and others stabbed her mother. There is nothing to disbelieve her entire statement more so when the injury on the person of the deceased and the part of the body were injury has been inflicted, as stated by P.W.-7 has been corroborated by the post-mortem report. Further PW2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence and stated that this appellant has stabbed the deceased with knife. There is nothing to disbelieve them. They are the natural witnesses. Though they are related to each other but there is nothing to disbelieve their statements. Merely because they are related, cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. 16. The plea of the appellant that other independent witnesses were not examined has got no weightage as it is that quality of the witness which matters and not the quantity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 , held as here under:- “16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole testimony of eyewitness PW 1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 , held as here under:- “16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole testimony of eyewitness PW 1. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise [see Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055] ].” 17. The Doctor’s report and the post-mortem report support the version of the informant and other witnesses. So far as the weapon is concerned it is not mandatory to produce the murder weapon in the Court when the doctor has categorically stated that there was penetrating wound which was not caused by the hard and blunt substance. 18. The fact that the deceased was assaulted with knife has been substantiated from the post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor. In cross-examination it is stated that the injury caused was not possible by hard and blunt substance and has been caused by single weapon. Doctor stated that he found penetrating wound. Eye witnesses also stated that the weapon used was knife. 19. So far as motive is concerned, when there is eye-witness and direct evidence of murder, it is not necessary to attribute motive in all cases. In this case, witnesses have clearly stated when the mother of the informant came to save her from the assault, it is the appellant and the others who stabbed her. 19. So far as motive is concerned, when there is eye-witness and direct evidence of murder, it is not necessary to attribute motive in all cases. In this case, witnesses have clearly stated when the mother of the informant came to save her from the assault, it is the appellant and the others who stabbed her. There are three stab injuries on the chest which suggests that the intention was to commit murder as the same was on the vital part of the body. 20. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the Ext.4 which is the inquest report exhibited by the Investigating Officer clearly suggests that dead body was found near the house of deceased which also supported the version of the informant who stated that she fled to the house of her mother and when her mother came to save her, she was attacked and killed. 21. All these facts which are deduced from the evidence led by the prosecution, the only conclusion which can be reached in this case about the guilt of the appellant is that the prosecution has proved the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. Considering what has been held above, I find no merit in this criminal appeal. 23. Thus, the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. Case No.78 of 2010, are sustained. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 24. Let the copy of this judgment and the Trial Court Record be transmitted to the learned Trial Court. 25. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. I agree. GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.