Order : To challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 15 th June 2002 passed in Sessions Case No.81 of 2001, the State of Rajasthan has questioned the reasonings given by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner by filing the present Acquittal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution as narrated by Bhanwarlal who is the father of the victim Manoj is that Shanker Ram and Shaitana Ram had a quarrel with his son in the afternoon of 8 th September 1998 between 01:00-2:00 PM and they both started beating his son. The informant has made a categoric allegation that Shaitana Ram grabbled his son while Shanker Ram struck him on his head with an iron rod (sariya) and when his son started raising hallah saying maare maare his neighbours Ram Pratap and Dhatu Ram came there. According to the informant, Ram Pratap and Dhatu Ram could see the accused persons assaulting his son and when they arrived at the scene of crime the accused persons fled away. This is the case of the prosecution that Manoj was taken to P.B.M. Hospital for treatment by his father Bhanwarlal, uncle Ram Pratap and Dhatu Ram but he succumbed to injuries around 4:30-5:00 AM the next morning. Thereafter, a report was lodged with the Police Station at Nayasahar around 6:00 A.M. on 9 th September1998. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W.9 Manphool Singh is the Investigating Officer who prepared Panchnama, sent the dead body of Manoj for post- mortem examination and prepared Fard Jabti of blood smeared shirt of Manoj and recovered iron rod at the instance of Shanker Ram. P.W. 9 also prepared the arrest memo and carried the investigation. 4. As P.W.8, Dr. O.P. Saini conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Manoj and found the following injuries on his person :- Ante Mortem injuries at time of Post Mortem examination :- 1. Stitch wound 1 cm on Lt. side occibital region upper part with clotted blood. 2. Abrasion 3 x 1/2 cm on Lt. side occibital region lower part. 3. Abrasion 5 x 1/2 cm & 4 ½ Lt. forearm on upper half and lower half. 4. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on Rt. Knee cap & 1/2 & 1/2 cm. 5. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm on Rt. 2. Abrasion 3 x 1/2 cm on Lt. side occibital region lower part. 3. Abrasion 5 x 1/2 cm & 4 ½ Lt. forearm on upper half and lower half. 4. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on Rt. Knee cap & 1/2 & 1/2 cm. 5. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm on Rt. Index & Middle finger each on distal phalynx dorsally with clotted blood. 6. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on Rt. Iliac crest region. 7. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on Rt. Scapular region. Above mention injuries are ante mortem and within about24 hrs. duration prior to death. Opinion:- The cause of death is coma due to head injury due to injury no.1 as mentioned in this P.M. report as ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of Nature. . There is a hole of size 0.9 cm x 0.9 cm on skull below injury no.1 with clotted blood. . Injury No.1 may occur from 'Pointed Blunt Weapon'. 5. According to P.W.8, the injuries on the person of Manoj were ante-mortem in nature and were caused about 24 hours before his death. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1 Bhanwarlal, P.W.2 Ram Pratap, P.W.3 Gomti and P.W.4 Dana Ram and held that the prosecution failed to establish that injuries to Manoj were caused by the accused persons. 7. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that this is no ground to disbelieve the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses that they were close relatives of the victim and therefore interested in prosecution of the accused persons. Referring to the injury report of P.W.3 vide Ex.P10, Mr. Rajesh Bhati, would urge that it is unbelievable and would be contrary to natural conduct of a person that P.W.3 has caused self-inflicted injuries just for the purpose of ensuring prosecution of the accused persons. 8. This is quite a settled proposition that relationship is not a ground to discard the testimony of a witness. A close relative would not falsely implicate an innocent person in the crime, but then, there is no law of universal application that a close relative of the victim shall always remain truthful while tendering evidence in the Court. There may be variety of reasons for a witness to depose falsely in the Court such as suspicion, past animosity etc. A close relative would not falsely implicate an innocent person in the crime, but then, there is no law of universal application that a close relative of the victim shall always remain truthful while tendering evidence in the Court. There may be variety of reasons for a witness to depose falsely in the Court such as suspicion, past animosity etc. and, therefore, it shall be the duty of the Court to closely and carefully examine the testimony of a related witness. 9. Not only P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Manoj, the presence of P.W.2 who is the uncle and P.W.3 who is mother of the deceased Manoj was seriously challenged by the defence at the place of the occurrence and at the time of the occurrence. The specific stand taken by the defence is that P.W.2 is not a resident of Bikaner and he admitted in his cross-examination that he is not registered as a voter at Bikaner and he is not even registered as a voter in his village. He further admitted that he does not possess a ration card showing his place of residence at Bikaner. We have this in our mind that a witness like P.W.2 who has been categorized by the defence as a chance witness must establish his presence on the day, time and place of occurrence. However, going by the admissions of P.W.2 in the cross-examination while he was tendering evidence in the Court, we accord approval to the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge that P.W.2 was not an eye witness. 10. As to injuries to P.W.3, the prosecution could not establish beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt that she had suffered such injuries in the occurrence and at the hands of the accused persons. Furthermore, we gather from the materials on record that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses is to the effect that Shanker Ram gave a single iron rod blow on the head of Manoj and nothing beyond has been said by the prosecution witnesses in the Court. Furthermore, we gather from the materials on record that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses is to the effect that Shanker Ram gave a single iron rod blow on the head of Manoj and nothing beyond has been said by the prosecution witnesses in the Court. However, as we glance through the injuries observed by P.W.8 on the person of Manoj which were about seven in number, it appears that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the assailants and Manoj suffered several abrasions and lacerated wound in course of the scuffle over forearm, upper and lower half, knee cap, middle finger and scapular region. Such injuries cast a serious doubt on the prosecution story inasmuch as none of the prosecution witnesses stated in the Court that Manoj was thrashed on the ground or he suffered several minor injuries in the scuffle. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have stated in the Court that Shaitana Ram grabbed Manoj while Shanker Ram struck one iron rod blow on the head of Manoj. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) has also taken note of the fact that the name of the persons who brought Manoj to the hospital were missing (unknown). Moreover, the prosecution also failed to indicate why a report to the police Station which was about only 2 Km from the place of occurrence was not lodged promptly by any other person if not father of Manoj. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.522 of 2003 is dismissed.