Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 848 (ALL)

Lala Ram v. State of U. P.

2024-03-19

MOHD.AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, RAJIV GUPTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Gupta, J. 1. Heard Shri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2004 passed by Additional District Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 626 of 2000 (State Vs. Lala Ram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Kayam Ganj, District Farrukhabad, by which the accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC and awarded the sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment, under Section 148 IPC and awarded the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment, under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each with default stipulations. 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide his letter dated 22.03.2021 has informed this Court that appellant no.1 Lala Ram has passed away about seven months back, as such, the instant criminal appeal on behalf of appellant no.1 Lala Ram, is dismissed as having been abated. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, prosecution story as unfurled in the FIR, is that one Satya Prakash was bearing enmity with his step uncle Lala Ram owing to dispute over a piece of land, in respect of which, civil case has been decided by the trial court in favour of Satya Prakash. Thus, on account of dispute over possession of the said piece of land, there were inimical terms between Lala Ram and his sons, on one hand and Satya Prakash on the other. 5. It is further stated that on 03.03.2000 at about 4:30 PM, while Satya Prakash was returning back to his house after purchasing some articles from the shop of Girish Chand Tailor, when he reached near the house of Durjan Lal, he was encircled on the way by Lala Ram and his sons, namely, Ram Naresh, Narottam, Mahima @ Mahipal and Karamveer. Lala Ram instigated them to kill Satya Prakash. Satya Prakash raised alarm to rescue him. Lala Ram instigated them to kill Satya Prakash. Satya Prakash raised alarm to rescue him. Hearing his alarm, first informant Ram Chand alongwith his wife Bhagyawati, Shyam Singh, Mahaveer Singh and several other villagers rushed to save him, however, Mahima and Narottam, armed with country-made pistol, fired upon him and Ram Naresh and Karamveer, who were having Gandasa in their hands, assaulted Satya Prakash on his head, consequent to which, he fell down. Lala Ram and his sons, however, made their escape good towards their house. 6. It is further stated that while taking Satya Prakash for medical treatment and had reached near the plot of Vishram, Satya Prakash breathed his last. Leaving the dead body on the plot of Vishram, first informant visited the Police Station to lodge the report, on the basis of a written report scribed by one Rama Nand. On the basis of written report, marked as Exhibit Ka-1, a First Information Report has been registered vide Case Crime No. 41 of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, carbon copy whereof has been drawn vide G.D. Report No.32 at 5:40 PM, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-12. 7. The first information report was registered in presence of the Station House Officer, Kayam Ganj, who was entrusted the investigation of the instant case. He recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Netra Pal Singh (PW-6) and the first informant Ram Chand (PW-1) and thereafter, proceeded to the place of incident alongwith ASI Mahaveer Singh and other police personnels. On reaching there, the Investigating Officer found the dead body of the deceased lying in the plot of Vishram and thereafter, he instructed ASI Mahaveer Singh to conduct the inquest proceedings and the inquest memo was drawn. The other relevant documents, namely, Form-13, Photo Nash, Challan Nash, Letter to C.M.O., Letter to R.I. and sample seals were prepared and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Mortuary for post-mortem. 8. An autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased Satya Prakash on 04.03.2000 at 2:30 PM at Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Farrukhabad. The Doctor has noted three anti-mortem injuries on his person, which are as under :- (i). Internal examination shows that left occipital and parietal have cut under injury no.3. (ii). 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th ribs were fractured. Right lungs were fractured at several places. The Doctor has noted three anti-mortem injuries on his person, which are as under :- (i). Internal examination shows that left occipital and parietal have cut under injury no.3. (ii). 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th ribs were fractured. Right lungs were fractured at several places. (iii) Two wad pieces, 4 Tikuli and 4 large pellets, 29 (twenty nine) small pellets recovered from left arm and right lungs and plural cavity. 9. The Investigating Officer thereafter reached the place, where Satya Prakash was done to death by firing shot and assaulted by Gandasa and on the pointing out of the first informant, prepared the site plan, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-8. The Investigating Officer has also collected the bloodstained earth and plain earth from the said place and kept in a separate container and prepared its recovery memo, which has been marked as Exhibit Ka-9. Thereafter, statement of other witnesses were recorded and effort was also made to apprehend the accused persons but to no avail. 10. Thereafter, on the transfer of Investigating Officer, investigation was handed over to Virendra Singh, who concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons, which has been proved as Exhibit Ka-10. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, however, since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, made over the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court vide its order dated 03.08.2000 framed the charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC. The accused-appellants abjured the said charges pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses of fact and four other formal witnesses. Their testimony, in brief, is enumerated hereunder : 12. PW-1 Ram Chand, is the step father of the deceased and the first informant of the case, in his testimony, has stated that civil case was pending between Lala Ram and the deceased Satya Prakash before the trial court, which was decided in favour of deceased Satya Prakash, as such, Lala Ram along with his family members started bearing enmity with Satya Prakash. On 03.03.2000 at about 4:00 PM, while Satya Prakash was returning back to his house after purchasing some articles from tailoring shop of Girish Chand Tailor and when, he reached near the house of Durjan Lal, he was encircled by Lala Ram and his sons, namely, Ram Naresh, Narottam, Mahima and Karamveer. Satya Prakash in order to rescue him, raised alarm. Hearing the alarm, he alongwith his wife Bhagyawati, Shyam Singh, Mahaveer Singh reached at the place of the incident. On instigation of Lala Ram, his sons Narottam and Mahima fired at Satya Prakash from their respective country-made pistol and Ram Naresh and Karamveer assaulted him on his head by Gandasa, consequent to which, he fell down and thereafter, Lala Ram and his sons ran away towards their house. Satya Prakash, while being taken to the hospital for medical treatment, breathed his last in the plot of Vishram. Leaving the dead body there, he got written report scribed by one Rama Nand on his dictation and after putting his signatures on it, the first information report has been lodged in the Police Station. The written report has been marked as Exhibit Ka-1. 13. During cross-examination, he stated that he is the only person in the village by the name of Ram Chand. Some criminal cases were registered against the deceased Satya Prakash, however, he can not state if cases under Sections 302, 304 or 307 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act were registered against him. He further stated that civil case was decided in favour of Satya Prakash and against the said decision, Lala Ram had filed an appeal, however, before the appeal could be decided, Satya Prakash was done to death. He further stated that incident had taken place near the house of Shyam Singh, which on its western side is connected to his house, while Satya Prakash was returning back to his house from the shop of Girish Tailor, he was encircled on the way and only on being encircled, Satya Prakash raised alarm. Hearing the alarm, he alongwith his wife, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh rushed to rescue him. He further stated that on the instigation made by Lala Ram, the assailants killed Satya Prakash by firing shot and assaulting by Gandasa. Hearing the alarm, he alongwith his wife, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh rushed to rescue him. He further stated that on the instigation made by Lala Ram, the assailants killed Satya Prakash by firing shot and assaulting by Gandasa. He further stated that at the time of incident, he has reached the place of incident and Satya Prakash, while being taken to the hospital, had reached near the plot of Vishram, Satya Prakash breathed his last. He further stated that assailants had assaulted Satya Prakash, where they have encircled him, however, Satya Prakash breathed his last at the plot of Vishram, while being taken to the hospital and his dead body was lying there. 14. PW-1 further stated that the plot of Vishram, where the deceased breathed his last, is at a distance of 100 feet from his house towards East. The distance between his house and the assailants is 200 yards towards the West. At the time, when Satya Prakash had gone at the shop of Girish Tailor, he alongwith his wife were present in their house. It is wrong to state that he had not witnessed any incident and falsely deposing in the court. It is further wrong to state that in the village, gambling was going-on and there, the deceased was killed. It is further wrong to state that Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh has falsely been nominated as witnesses. The police reached the place of the incident at 5:30 PM and conducted the inquest and completed the other necessary formalities. He further denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident and on account of inimical terms, he is falsely deposing. 15. PW-2 Bhagyawati is the wife of PW-1 and mother of the deceased Satya Prakash. She stated that civil case was going-on between the deceased Satya Prakash and Lala Ram, which was decided in favour of Satya Prakash and due to this reason, Lala Ram and his sons used to bear animosity with Satya Prakash. On the day of the incident, while the deceased Satya Prakash was returning back from the shop of Girish Tailor after purchasing some articles and reached near the house of Durjan Lal, he was encircled by Lala Ram and his sons, namely, Ram Naresh, Narottam, Mahima and Karamveer and on exhortation by Lala Ram to kill, Satya Prakash raised alarm to rescue him. On hearing his alarm, she alongwith her husband Ram Chand and villagers Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh reached the place of the incident. Lala Ram instigated his sons to kill Satya Prakash, consequent to which, Mahima and Narottam opened fire, which hit the deceased Satya Prakash and Ram Naresh and Karamveer assaulted him on his head by Gandasa, due to which, he fell down. Lala Ram alongwith his sons made their escape good to their house. While Satya Prakash was being taken to the hospital and reached at the plot of Vishram, he breathed his last. Leaving the dead body there, her husband rushed to the Police Station to lodge the first information report. 16. During cross-examination, she has stated that the place, where the assailants had encircled and killed the deceased Satya Prakash, was a pakka way and lot of blood had spread there. She further categorically stated that before the fire was made, she had reached the place of incident, she alongwith her husband Ram Chand, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh took him at the plot of Vishram, where Satya Prakash succumbed to his injuries. The police had reached within an hour at the plot of Vishram, where dead body of the deceased Satya Prakash was kept. At the time of incident, Satya Prakash had gone to buy some articles from the shop of Girish Tailor. The house of Shyam Singh is situate near the place, where the deceased Satya Prakash was killed. Hearing the alarm, she alongwith her husband Ram Chand, her daughter-in-law, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh reached the place of the incident. She further stated that she was standing at a distance of 3-4 paces, from where, Satya Prakash was killed and at the said place, her husband Ram Chand, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh were also present and she had seen the incident from the distance of 3-4 paces. Ram Naresh and Karamveer had assaulted Satya Prakash by Gandasa on his head, due to which, he fell down, then other sons of Lala Ram shot him and thereafter, they escaped towards their house. The police had reached the place, where dead body of the deceased was kept and prepared inquest and sealed the dead body, which was handed over to the police for carrying it to the Mortuary. The police had reached the place, where dead body of the deceased was kept and prepared inquest and sealed the dead body, which was handed over to the police for carrying it to the Mortuary. She further stated that at the time, when the alarm was raised by Satya Prakash, she alongwith her husband Ram Chand were present at their house, from where, they reached the place of incident. On the alarm, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh also reached the place of incident. The place where, she alongwith her husband Ram Chand, Shyam Singh, Mahaveer Singh had witnessed the incident, has been specifically pointed out to the Investigating Officer, however, she could not state the reason as to why Investigating Officer has not shown the said place in the site plan. 17. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the factum of witnessing the murder has not been mentioned in the FIR. She further denied the suggestion that she alongwith her husband Ram Chand, daughter-in-law, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh had not witnessed the incident and only after the incident was over, they had reached at the place of incident. She denied that number of criminal cases were reported against the deceased Satya Prakash. She further denied the suggestion that when she reached at the Police Station, then with due deliberations and consultations with the police, the assailants were nominated. 18. PW-3 Shyam Singh is the resident of place of the incident. He stated that on 03.03.2000 at 4:30 PM, on hearing an alarm to rescue from near the house of Durjan Lal, he alongwith Mahaveer, Ram Chand, Bhagyawati reached the place of incident, where Lala Ram and his sons had encircled Satya Prakash. The assailants Mahima and Narottam were armed with country-made pistol, whereas Karamveer and Ram Naresh were armed with Gandasa. Seeing the witnesses, Lala Ram instigated his sons to kill Satya Prakash, then Mahaveer and Narottam fired shot with their country-made pistol, whereas Karamveer and Ram Naresh started assaulting him with Gandasa on his head, due to which, he fell down. The assailants then escaped towards their house. While taking Satya Prakash to the hospital, near the plot of Vishram, he breathed his last. He further stated that on account of animosity over civil dispute between Satya Prakash and Lala Ram, he was done to death. The assailants then escaped towards their house. While taking Satya Prakash to the hospital, near the plot of Vishram, he breathed his last. He further stated that on account of animosity over civil dispute between Satya Prakash and Lala Ram, he was done to death. He further stated that house of the first informant Ram Chand is situate at a distance of 150-200 yards from his house. He further stated that at the time of the incident, bricks were kept at the plot of Bhajan Lal and on the North, where the bricks are kept, is an open field of Kishan Lal, where eucalyptus tree is planted. He further stated that the deceased Satya Prakash was returning back to his house from the shop of Girish Tailor and Satya Prakash lives in the house of Ram Chand. He further stated that the victim was killed in the plot of Bhajan Lal and not on the way. He further stated that when he heard the alarm to save, he was at his house and eucalyptus tree is planted at a distance of 150-200 paces from his house. 19. PW-3 denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, he alongwith Mahaveer was present at the house of Ram Chand and reached the place of incident. He further stated that when he reached the place of incident, Ram Chand, Pramod Kumar and Bhagyawati Devi and others were already present there. He further stated that from the place of incident, he was at a distance of 4-5 feet on the North side, where Bhagyawati and Ram Chand were at a distance of 60 feet. From the place of incident, Satya Prakash was brought in the plot of Vishram, where he breathed his last. Satya Prakash was being taken to the hospital by him, Ram Chand, Bhagyawati and others. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident and gambling was being played in the village and Satya Prakash was also involved in the act of gambling, where he was done to death. He further denied the suggestion that any case under Section 307, 302 IPC or under Section 25 of Arms Act was registered against the deceased. 20. He further denied the suggestion that any case under Section 307, 302 IPC or under Section 25 of Arms Act was registered against the deceased. 20. PW-4 is the Medical Officer at Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Farrukhabad, who had conducted an autopsy on the person of the deceased and proved the autopsy report and contents thereof, which has been marked as Exhibit Ka-2. He, during cross-examination, stated that blackening and tattooing could be caused by fire being made within one meter and injury no.4 could be caused from a distance of one meter or 10 feet. He further stated that deceased could have died between 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM with the margin of six hours. He further stated that instantaneous death could be caused from ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased within few minutes. 21. PW-5 is the Station House Officer, in whose presence, the instant case was registered and who was entrusted with the investigation. He, after registrations of the first information report, recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Netrapal Singh and the first informant Ram Chand and thereafter, he left for place of incident alongwith other police personnel. He further stated that dead body of the deceased was kept in the plot of Vishram and on his instructions, ASI Mahaveer Singh conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest memo alongwith other relevant documents, namely, Photo Nash, Challan Nash, Letter to R.I., Letter to C.M.O. and sealed samples were prepared after keeping the dead body in a cotton cloth, it was sent for autopsy. Inquest report and other relevant papers were proved as Exhibit Ka-3 to Exhibit Ka-7. The relevant site plan was prepared at the pointing out of the first informant Ram Chand, which has been proved as Exhibit Ka-8. The plain earth and bloodstained earth were also taken from the place of incident and were kept in a separte container, which has been proved as Exhibit Ka-9. Thereafter, on his transfer, the investigation was entrusted to Virendra Singh, who concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which has been proved as Exhibit Ka-10. 22. During cross-examination, he stated that investigation of the instant case was entrusted to him and he has recorded the statement of the witnesses and the check report had reached the Office of Circle Officer on 06.03.2000. 22. During cross-examination, he stated that investigation of the instant case was entrusted to him and he has recorded the statement of the witnesses and the check report had reached the Office of Circle Officer on 06.03.2000. When, he reached the place of incident, the dead body was kept in the plot of Vishram and blood was noted there. He further stated that he had noticed the house of Durjan Lal and shown it in the site plan and on the east of the house of Durjan Lal, vacant plot of Bhajan Lal is situate. At Point “A”, the deceased was done to death and the witnesses are said to have seen the incident from Point “B” and the distance between Point “A” and Point “B” is 60 paces. He further denied the suggestion that information about the incident was orally given in the Police Station and subsequently, after due deliberations and consultations, the FIR was registered. He further expressed his ignorance of the criminal cases, which are said to be pending against the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that earlier, a complaint was lodged against SHO, Kayam Ganj, District Farrukhabad in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, as such, the police has animosity against the assailants. He further denied to have found any tailoring articles like buttons and buckram at the place of incident. 23. PW-6 is the Head Moharrir Netrapal Singh, who was handed over the written report by the first informant, on the basis of which, he has drawn the check FIR and carbon copy thereof was prepared vide G.D. Report No.32 at 5:40 PM and the case was registered vide Case Crime No. 41 of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and contents thereof, has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-11. G.D. Report whereof has been proved as Exhibit Ka-12. The said witness has not been cross-examined at all and his cross-examination has been noted to be nil. 24. Thereafter, the statement of accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstance to the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated, however, defence has not led any evidence. The said witness has not been cross-examined at all and his cross-examination has been noted to be nil. 24. Thereafter, the statement of accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstance to the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated, however, defence has not led any evidence. The trial court, on appreciating the evidence on record, has held that prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused-appellants by relying upon the testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses of fact, who were present at the place and the time of incident, being the natural witnesses like parents and neighbours of the deceased residing in the vicinity closed to the place of incident, where the deceased has been done to death. 25. The explanation tendered by learned counsel for the appellants is false and inadequate. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that at the time of the incident, the deceased was returning back to his house from the shop of Girish tailor master after purchasing some articles and has been killed near the house of Durjan Lal and thereafter, while being taken for medical treatment, he succumbed to his injuries at the plot of Vishram, where his dead body was kept, however, no trail of blood has been found between the two points, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that prosecution story regarding reaching of the witnesses at the place of incident after hearing the alarm of the deceased is too farfetched and cannot be relied upon and therefore, presence of the witnesses at the time of the incident is wholly doubtful and no reliance can be placed on their testimony, which is liable to be discarded. The conviction of the appellants is, therefore, wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that on reaching at the place of incident and witnessing the killing of their son, PW-1 and PW-2 have not raised any alarm, which also falsifies the presence of the witnesses at the place of incident. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that on reaching at the place of incident and witnessing the killing of their son, PW-1 and PW-2 have not raised any alarm, which also falsifies the presence of the witnesses at the place of incident. Furthermore, except the deceased, no other person has received any injury nor the assailants had made any attempt to assault the parents of the deceased and no injury has been found on their person, which further falsifies their presence at the time and place of incident. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that incident had taken place at 4:30 PM and within one hour and ten minutes, the FIR has been shown to be lodged, which practically is impossible. In fact, FIR has been lodged subsequently by making it ante-time. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that no independent witness has been examined, except P.W.-3 Shyam Singh, even Mahavir Singh, who is also said to be reached the place of incident, has not been examined, which further creates serious dent in the prosecution story. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that motive has not been cogently established by the prosecution, yet the trial court has recorded the finding of conviction against the appellants is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there has been complete non-compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and therefore, prosecution story becomes doubtful. He has further submitted that in the FIR, the distance has been mentioned as 10 Kms. South-East, whereas in the Inquest Report, distance has been mentioned as 11 Kms. towards South, which further makes prosecution story doubtful. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, yet the trial court has recorded the finding of conviction against the appellants, which is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 34. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision reported in (1). (2004) 49 ACC 755 Manish Kumar Etc. Vs. State of U.P., (2). (2001) Cri L. J. 4306, Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (3). (1994) 5 SCC 188 , Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs. State of U.P., (4). 34. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision reported in (1). (2004) 49 ACC 755 Manish Kumar Etc. Vs. State of U.P., (2). (2001) Cri L. J. 4306, Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (3). (1994) 5 SCC 188 , Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs. State of U.P., (4). AIR (1997) SC 3292, State of U.P. Vs. Bhagwan and Others, (5). (1982) 0 Supreme (All) 568, Manohar Vs. State. 35. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that in the instant case, prompt FIR has been lodged by father of the deceased and it is broad day light murder in the presence of the witnesses, who are the parents of the deceased, being the natural witnesses. Even P.W.-3 is an eye-witness of the incident, who has also supported the prosecution story in all material particulars, except minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case and from their testimony, the prosecution case has been cogently and clearly established against the appellants. 36. Learned AGA has further submitted that the FIR in the instant case, by no stretch of imagination, can not be said to be ante-time and no suggestion in this regard has been given to the witnesses, as such, no doubt can be raised about lodging of the FIR at the time specified, the contrary argument made by learned counsel for the appellants is wholly not worth consideration and is liable to be discarded. 37. Learned AGA has further submitted that eye-witness of the incident has cogently and unerringly established the prosecution case against the appellants and the defence has not been able to elicit any doubt about the credibility of the said witnesses. 38. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record and the evidence adduced, it is evident that the incident is said to have taken place in the broad day light in presence of the parents and neighbours of the deceased, who are residing in the same vicinity. The FIR, admittedly, has been promptly lodged in the Police Station and the manner and place of the incident has been cogently and unerringly established by the prosecution. 39. The FIR, admittedly, has been promptly lodged in the Police Station and the manner and place of the incident has been cogently and unerringly established by the prosecution. 39. The nature of the injury as pointed out by the Doctor in the post-mortem report, clearly indicates that injury could be caused by fire-arm and sharp edged weapon as stated by the witnesses and no doubt can be raised in respect of the injuries sustained by the deceased. 40. It is further germane to point out here that as per the prosecution case, the incident, in question, has taken place in front of house of Durjan Lal and thereafter, victim was lifted by his father alongwith other persons of the vicinity and was being taken to the hospital for providing him the medical treatment, however, on the way, victim succumbed to his injuries and as such, his dead body was kept in the plot of Vishram. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though the victim was having bleeding injuries but no trail of blood has been found in between the two places, where he has been assaulted and the place, where he died, which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution story, however, the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective and illegally recorded the finding of conviction against the appellants. It would be noted that the time of incident is day time, when large number of persons were moving on the way, where the incident is said to have taken place and as such, merely on the ground that no trail of blood was found, the entire prosecution story, which otherwise inspires confidence, can not be thrown over board. In the facts of the case, the said argument of learned counsel for the appellants is liable to be repelled. 41. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the place, from where, the incident is alleged to have taken place and the house of parents of the deceased is 120130 paces and as such, after hearing the alarm of the victim, there is no possibility for the said witnesses to reach the place of the incident. 42. 42. This argument of learned counsel for the appellants also does not hold much water in view of the fact that at the time, when the victim was attacked, he, in order to rescue himself, raised alarm under fear of death, which were heard by the witnesses, who reached the place of incident and witnessed the entire incident, which has unerringly deposed by them in their testimony, which inspires confidence. The defence has not been able to elicit any doubt about the credibility and reliability of their evidence, which has been cogently and truthfully established. 43. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that parents of the deceased, while witnessing the incident of killing of their son, had not raised any alarm nor made any attempt to save him, as such, their presence is completely ruled out from the place of incident. 44. The said argument of learned counsel for the appellants, in our considered opinion, is unacceptable as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some started wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individuals. There can not be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard the piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. 45. Moreover, the assailants, in the instant case, were armed with deadly weapon including fire-arm and Gandasa and therefore, witnesses did not dare to reach near the victim in order to rescue him. 46. It is further germane to point out here that on account of personal enmity with regard to dispute over a plot of land, in respect of which, civil proceedings were going-on between the parties, as such, he alone was the target of the assailants and after achieving the target of killing of the deceased, they immediately ran away. Therefore, non-receiving of the injury on the witnesses would not, in any way, effect the credibility of the prosecution case. Therefore, non-receiving of the injury on the witnesses would not, in any way, effect the credibility of the prosecution case. 47. The said argument of learned counsel for the appellants is also liable to be repelled. 48. Furthermore, it is germane to point out here that the instant case is a case of direct evidence and therefore, as per the settled proposition of law, motive in a case of direct evidence pales into insignificance, however, the instant case is an outcome of property dispute between the parties, which has resulted in causing the death of the deceased. Motive in a case of direct evidence does not adversely affect the prosecution case. Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny by the court while coming to the conclusion. Where there are different evidence, proving an incident and eye-witness account proved the role of the accused, absence in proving of the motive does not affect the prosecution case. 49. Further, it is also feebly contended on behalf of the appellants that special report was not forwarded to the Magistrate as stipulated under Section 157 CrPC instantaneously and as such, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. 50. In respect of the said submissions, it is relevant to point out here that Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in several of its decisions, particularly, in Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640 has clearly held that where the FIR was actually registered without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it can not by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. 51. As far as commencement of the investigation, in the instant case, is concerned, our earlier discussions discloses that there was no infirmity in the case of prosecution on that score. Time and again, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that unless serious prejudice was demonstrated to have been suffered as against the accused, mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution. 52. Time and again, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that unless serious prejudice was demonstrated to have been suffered as against the accused, mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution. 52. In the instant case, no prejudice whatsoever has been pointed out at all, therefore, the said submission on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants can not be sustained and the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants is clearly distinguishable on the facts. 53. Furthermore, it is argued that in the chik FIR, the distance between the place of incident to the Police Station has been mentioned 10 Kms, whereas in the inquest report, it has been noted to be 11 Kms. The said slight difference in this regard does not have any bearing on the reliability of the prosecution case. Moreover, no suggestion whatsoever has been given to the witnesses in respect of the said fact, as such, the said argument of learned counsel for the appellants, in our considered opinion, is liable to be repelled. 54. Now, considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that PW-1 and PW-2 are the parents of the deceased and therefore, they are the interested and partisan witnesses, hence, their evidence could not be relied upon. 55. The above noted submission was considered by Hon’ble Apex Court elaborately way back in Dalip Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 . The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit who has caused the death and implicate an innocent person. His/her evidence can only be discarded when it is established that the witness has a cause, due to enmity to implicate him falsely. In Dalip Singh (supra) also, the testimonies of two women witnesses were impeached on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. Following principles were enunciated in Dalip Singh (supra):- "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth." 56. In Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 , same principles were reiterated:- "4. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of the three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.-3 Harbhajan Singh, P.W.-5 Chanan Kaur and P.W.-6 Kesar Kaur. It is true that the three witnesses were relations of the deceased and bore animus against the accused but as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the deceased these persons were the natural witnesses and were in fact sitting in the court-yard when the occurrence took place. It may be difficult to get witnesses from the village when an assault of the type suddenly takes place in the house of the deceased. It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. The High Court was fully alive to these principles and has in fact found that the evidence of these three witnesses has a ring of truth. After having perused the evidence ourselves also we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has not made any attempt to dwell into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of these witnesses but has rejected them mainly on general grounds most of which are either unsupportable in law or based on speculation. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. There is also the evidence of Balbir Singh, P.W.-17, who is a Sarpanch of the village and an independent witness and who proves that the appellant Piara Singh had made an extra judicial confession before him in which he admitted to have committed the murder of the deceased Surjit Singh along with his companions Kashmir Singh, Gian Singh and Joginder Singh. This witness also proves that Kashmir Singh on being narrated by the details made a disclosure which resulted in the recovery of the Kirpan from the sugar-cane field of Meja Singh for which a search list was prepared and the Kirpan was also found stained with human blood. According to the Investigating Officer an empty cartridge was also found at the spot and he sent the same to the Ballistic Expert along with the rifle recovered from Piara Singh who was a constable in the Border Security Force and the Ballistic-Expert found that the empty could have been shot from the rifle in question. These circumstances fully corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Finally, there is the medical evidence of Dr. Jatinder Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased and he found as many as 7 incised wounds on the various parts of the body of the deceased and 7 incised punctured wounds on some vital parts of the body. Apart from these injuries the deceased had also sustained a gun shot injury with a wound of entry and exit on the left buttock, which according to Dr. Jatinder Singh could be; caused by a fire-arm including a rifle. The Doctor further deposed that the contusions and abrasions were caused by a blunt weapon and the other incised wounds were caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the Gandasa. Another Doctor was examined by the Sessions Judge as Court Witness No. 1 who on seeing the post-mortem report of Dr. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh." 57. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1981) 3 SCC 675 observed as under:- "13. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh." 57. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1981) 3 SCC 675 observed as under:- "13. ...it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon." 58. Again in S. Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 163, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- "12. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. 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. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dilip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses." 59. In this context, the reference may also be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164 and Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2015) 1 SCC 776 . 60. In this context, the reference may also be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164 and Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2015) 1 SCC 776 . 60. Thus, we find unbroken line of authorities to the effect that the evidence of eye-witness, if found forceful, can not be discarded simply because witness is a relative of the deceased. The only caveat is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. Thus, close scrutiny of testimony of eye-witness shows that they witnessed the incident, in question. The evidence of P.W.-4 Dr. P.K. Jain, who conducted the post-mortem and post-mortem report also points out conclusively to the culpability of the appellants for commission of the offence. 61. It is trite law that in case of direct evidence, the motive looses its significance. If the evidence of the eye-witness is trustworthy, there is no need to establish any motive. 62. Thus, from the statements of the witnesses adduced during the course of trial, we are satisfied that the offence of murder has been committed by the appellants. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and satisfied that the trial court has appreciated the entire evidence on record in proper perspective and learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any perversity in the finding of the trial court. 63. Thus, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2004 upholding conviction and sentence against the appellants, by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 626 of 2000 (State Vs. Lala Ram and Others), under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC. The instant criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Surviving appellants, namely, Ram Naresh, Narottam, Mahima @ Mahipal and Karamveer are directed to surrender before the court below and serve out the sentence awarded to them by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. 64. Let a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the court concerned along with trial court record for compliance.