S.K. Gupta, J.

1. Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the accused by their respective names) question the legality of the judgment dated 18.7.1995 propounded by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in holding them guilty of commission of offences under section 302 read with section 149 of RPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, to be shared equally by all the accused persons, and further imprisonment for a term of two years for the commission of offence under section 148 R.P.C and also to suffer simple imprisonment of two years for commission of offence under section 324 RPC, with a stipulation that on the recovery of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, same shall be paid as compensation to PW Soma Devi, wife of the deceased. However, accused Shanker Dass has since expired and accused Ganesh Dass and Ram Dhan have absconded and thus could not be tried.

2. Factual scenario, as described by the prosecution, is essentially as follows:

On the night of 27th April, 1988, between 11.30-12O Clock, all the seven accused persons namely Ganesh, Daya Ram, Rattan Lal, Joginder Lal, Romesh Lal, Shanker Dass and Ram Dhan, armed with deadly weapons, swords and khokhries, actuated by a common intention and in pursuance of long drawn enmity over a dispute of a parcel of land entered into the house of deceased Sadiq Massih. The deceased was sleeping in the courtyard of the house and the accused, without giving him opportunity to rise from the cot, attacked and inflicted injuries on him, as a result of which the latter received as many as 22 injuries on almost all parts of his body and lost his breath on spot. When the members of his family made an attempt to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused, the accused also attacked them and inflicted injuries. The right arm of Soma Devi, wife of deceased, was chopped off and her sons were also attacked and seriously injured by the accused persons. Soon after the occurrence, first information report was lodged by PW Raj Rani with Police Station Satwari and FIR was registered against the accused persons for commission of offences under sections 302, 307, 449, 148 and 149 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act and investigation ensued.

3. All the accused persons, except Ganesh Dass and Ram Dhan, came to be apprehended by the police during investigation. On conclusion of investigation, challan was presented. The learned trial court found the accused guilty under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149 RPC and sentenced them accordingly.

4. In support of the appeal, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants, attacked the findings recorded on the ground that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are related, their evidence is interested and suffers from glaring discrepancies, tutored and thus cannot be accepted without independent corroboration for recording conviction of the accused. Mr. Sethi further submitted that none of the witnesses from the village has been examined; there has been delay in dispatching FIR to the Court and the weapons of offence have not been shown to the doctor to seek his opinion if the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by such weapons, alleged to have been recovered from the accused persons, when taken together, it crumbles down the prosecution case like play cards. The trial court, according to Mr. Sethi, has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and the evidence of the witnesses, relied upon by the trial court, is qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt.

5. Whereas Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Sr. AAG, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has established the case against the accused of having committed the offences with pre-meditation.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in extenso and also perused the record meticulously. The case of the prosecution hinges on the direct testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PWs Soma Devi, Raj Rani, David Massih, Prem Massih, Liaqat Massih, Kanta Devi, Gulzar Massih, William Massih, Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih.

7. FIR has been lodged by PW Raj Rani about the occurrence. She stated to have known the accused, who happen to be the residents of the same village. It was on 27th April, 1988, she went to her room alongwith her husband and children after witnessing "CHITTARHAAR" at 8 P.M, whereas her father-in-law (deceased Sadiq Massih), mother-in-law and other members of the family, slept in the courtyard of the house. She was attracted on hearing the cries of her father-in-law, Sadiq Massih, between 11.30/12.00 in the night. She alongwith her husband opened the door and came out and saw all the accused persons, armed with swords, dah and khokhries, inflicting injuries to her father-in-law, deceased Sadiq Massih. She further stated that accused Rattan Lal, Joginder Lal, Ram Dhan and Ganesh Dass were having swords in their hands, whereas accused Romesh Lal was armed with khokhri, Shanker Dass was having an iron rod and accused Daya Ram a dah. She stated that when PW Soma Devi, wife of the deceased, made an attempt to save her husband, deceased Sadiq Massih, her right hand was chopped off by accused Ganesh Dass. She further stated that her husband also tried to intervene, but accused Rattan Lal, Joginder Lal and Ganesh Dass attacked him with swords but he managed to run to his room, but was chased and inflicted injuries on his neck, legs and arms. Thereafter, accused Romesh Lal, Shanker Dass and Ram Dhan caused injuries to Gulzar Massih, David Massih, William Massih, Liaqat Massih and Smt. Kanta Devi when they raised alarm. It is also in her evidence that all the accused inflicted injuries to other family members with the weapons in their possession. She also stated that Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih were guests in the house on the night of occurrence. The accused fled away from the spot after causing injuries. Her father-in-law could not withstand the injuries and died on spot. She went to the Police Station during night and narrated the entire episode to police. The police, after registering the report, came alongwith her to the place of occurrence.

8. Another witness examined in sustenance of the charge against the accused is Mst. Soma Devi, wife of the deceased. Her evidence is to the effect that on the night of occurrence at about 11.30/12O clock, she heard screams of her husband and she woke-up and saw all the accused persons inflicting injuries to her husband. The light of the courtyard was on and it was a moon lit night. She further stated that accused Rattan Lal, Ganesh Dass, Joginder Lal and Ram Dhan were armed with swords, whereas accused Romesh Lal was armed with a khokhri, accused Shanker Dass with an iron rod and accused Daya Ram with a dah. When she tried to intervene, accused Ganesh Dass gave a blow of sword on her right arm, which was dismembered from her body and fell on ground. She was also given blows of sword by accused Ganesh Dass on her back, shoulders and right thigh. Her son Prem Massih, who had also come on the spot by that time, intervened but the accused Rattan Lal, Joginder Lal and Ganesh Dass attacked him also and inflicted injuries to him. He ran towards his room but the accused chased him and inflicted injuries upon him. When Gulzar Massih, David Massih, Liaqat Massih and Kanta Devi, present in the house, raised alarm, accused attacked them also and caused injuries to them. According to this witness, Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, who were guests in their house on that night also ran away and stood behind the walls. This witness also affirmed that they had a dispute with the accused persons over a piece of land. The accused fled away after the occurrence. According to this witness it took about 5 to 10 minutes in the occurrence. She saw her husband saying "Rattan Mujhe Mat Maro, Mera Kaya Kasoor Hai" (Rattan dont kill me, what is my fault). This witness also identified the weapons used in the commission of crime.

9. Similarly, PW Prem Massih is another injured witness. He deposed that his parents, brothers Gulzar Massih, David Massih, Liaqat Massih and William Massih, besides Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, guests, were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. He and his wife, Raj Rani, were sleeping in the room and when they heard noise at about 11.30/12O clock in the night, they came out and saw the accused persons causing injuries to his father. He further stated that the accused Rattan Lal, Ganesh Dass, Joginder Lal and Ram Dhan were armed with swords, whereas accused Romesh Lal was armed with a khokhri, accused Shanker Dass with an iron rod and accused Daya Ram with a dah, with which they were inflicting injuries to his father. Accused Ganesh Dass chopped off the arm of his mother when she intervened to save his father. He also caused further injuries to his mother with sword. The accused also attacked him with swords when he tried to intervene and save his father but he ran to his room where accused also chased him and caused injuries on his arms, neck, head and legs, as a result of which he fell on the ground. It was at that time, accused Rattan Lal shouted that they had finished deceased Sadiq Massih and others. He also identified the weapons used by the accused in the occurrence. He remained admitted in hospital for 15 days during which police recorded his statement after 6/7 days of the occurrence. It was moon lit night and there was light in the courtyard in which he identified all the accused persons.

10. Another eye witness of the occurrence, examined by the prosecution, who also is stated to have sustained injuries in the occurrence, is PW Liaqat Massih. As per this witness, on 27.4.1988, he was sleeping in the courtyard of his house and woke-up on hearing cries of his father at about 11.30/12O clock. He saw accused, Rattan Lal, Ganesh Dass, Joginder Lal and Ram Dhan were armed with swords, whereas accused Romesh Lal was armed with a khokhri, accused Shanker Dass with an iron rod and accused Daya Ram with a dah, with which they were inflicting injuries to his father. His mother, when tried to save his father, accused Ganesh Dass gave a blow of sword and chopped off the arm of his mother. His elder brother Prem Massih, when came out of his room, accused also attacked him and caused injuries to him with swords. When PWs William Massih, David Massih and Gulzar Massih started weeping, the accused attacked them also and caused injuries to them. Accused Romesh Lal caused injury on his right arm with a sword. The entire occurrence was witnessed by PWs Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, their guests, who had come to their house and stayed for the night. Police was brought by PW Raj Rani and the injured were removed to the hospital.

11. PW Gulzar Massih is the next eye witness examined by the prosecution who also sustained injuries in the occurrence. His evidence is also similar about the occurrence what has been stated by the earlier witness. He came out of the room on hearing cries of his father and saw the accused inflicting injuries to his father with swords, khokhries, iron rod and dah in their possession. His mother, when tried to intervene to save his father, accused Ganesh Dass gave a blow of sword and chopped off the arm of his mother, which fell on the ground. Prem Massih, his elder brother, when came forward, accused also attacked him and caused injuries to him with swords. Prem Massih when ran inside the room in order to save himself, accused chased him and caused serious injuries to him. PW Kanta Devi was also inflicted injuries by the accused, besides William Massih, David Massih and Liaqat Massih, PWs. He also affirmed that there was a dispute pertaining to land between the parties. It is also in his evidence that nobody came out from the locality even after hearing their cries because of casteism.

12. PW Kanta Devi, injured, is also an eye witness to the occurrence. She had also seen the accused causing injuries to Sadiq Massih with swords, iron rod, dah and khokhries, in their possession. As per her statement, when PW Soma Devi requested the accused not to beat her husband, accused Ganesh Dass chopped off her right arm with a sword. On seeing PW Prem Massih, coming out of the room, accused Joginder Lal, Rattan Lal and Ganesh Dass also chased and attacked him and caused injuries with swords, whereas other accused inflicted injuries on Liaqat Massih, William Massih, David Massih and Gulzar Massih. The accused had also caused injuries on her left shoulder. She further stated that accused, after the occurrence, fled away from the spot. Police was brought by PW Raj Rani, who went to the police station soon after the occurrence. Injured were removed to the hospital by the police.

13. In the like manner, PW David Massih, also an injured, is an eye witness of the occurrence. He stated that after witnessing "CHITARHAAR", his elder brother Prem Massih and PW Raj Rani went inside the room for sleeping, whereas his father, mother, two younger sisters, brothers, Liaqat Massih, William Massih and Gulzar Massih, Mst. Kanta Devi, besides Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, guests, were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. All the family members woke-up on hearing the noise of deceased Sadiq Massih. All the accused had inflicted injuries to his father, as a result of which he died on spot. When PW Soma Devi, his mother, came forward to save deceased Sadiq Massih, accused Ganesh Dass gave a blow of sword on her right arm, which was severed from her body and fell on ground and, thereafter, he caused injuries on her back and legs. He also stated that when his brother, Prem Massih, came out of the room to save their father, accused, Rattan Lal, Ganesh Dass, and Joginder Lal followed him inside the room and inflicted injuries on him with swords, whereas accused Daya Ram, Shanker Dass, Romesh Lal and Ram Dhan caused injuries to Liaqat Massih, Gulzar Massih, William Massih and Mst. Kanta Devi, when the latter started weeping and attempted to intervene. When PW Raj Rani saw deceased Sadiq Massih, her father-in-law, succumbing to injuries, she started weeping and went to Police Station Satwari. She returned with police, who removed all the injured to hospital for treatment.

14. PW William Massih was also injured in the occurrence and gave a detailed narration of the occurrence, as deposed by the other witnesses. He was also removed to the hospital by police. According to this witness, the occurrence has taken place on account of enmity on a dispute over a piece of land between the parties.

15. PWs, Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, were guests in the house of the deceased on the night of occurrence and stated to have seen the incident with naked eyes. PW Mohan Massih stated that Sadiq Massih was related to him. He further stated that all were sitting in the house of Sadiq Massih when they saw seven accused persons, armed with swords, dah, khokhries and iron rod, entering the house of the deceased. They attacked deceased Sadiq Massih and inflicted injuries to him. Wife of the deceased when told the accused not to kill her husband, accused Ganesh Dass gave a sword blow on her right hand and severed it from her body. When Prem Massih came out of his room and tried to intervene, accused Rattan Lal, Joginder Lal and Ganesh Dass attacked him also after following him and caused injuries to him. Gulzar Massih, William Massih, Liaqat Massih and David Massih also, when tried to save their father, were attacked and caused injuries by the accused. The accused, however, ran away from the spot after the occurrence. PW Raj Rani was also present there and witnessed the occurrence from near the room. PW Raj Rani went to the Police Station and came back with Police after 10/15 minutes. Sadiq Massih had died on the spot due to injuries sustained by him. Injured were removed to the hospital by the police. It was a moon lit night and light of the courtyard was on at the time of occurrence. To the same effect is the statement of PW Darshan Massih.

16. In order to appreciate the evidence, the court is required to bear in mind the set up and environment in which the crime is committed, the level of understanding of the witnesses and the over jealousness of some of near relations to ensure that every one even remotely connected with the crime be also convicted. Everyone has different way of narration for same facts. These are only illustrative instances. Bearing in mind these broad principles, the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the court to separate the grain from the chaff.

17. The evidence provided by the eye witnesses is so natural and convincing that despite cross-examination, the defence failed to shake their credibility. All the witnesses, except Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, are the witnesses, who have been caused injuries by the accused with the weapons in their possession in the occurrence that took place on the night of 27th April, 1988 in the courtyard of their house at Bhore Kulian.

18. The trial court accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses and the doctor. The trial court concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

19. The criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. The legal trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused arraigned in the case. In arriving at a conclusion about the truth, the courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth. The hyper technicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest the court of its responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion regarding the existence of a particular circumstances, of course, keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case. Further, the Courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. It may further be pointed out that the criminal jurisprudence cannot be considered to a utopian thought but have to be considered as part and parcel of the human civilisation and their realistic appraisal. It is the duty of the appellate court to look into evidence adduced in the case and reach at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be stated to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. Like the trial court, the appellate court has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final court. Such a presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court. The judicial approach in a case where accused is charged by murder has to be cautious, circumspect and careful.

20. In the present case, the FIR has been lodged by PW Raj Rani in giving detailed narration of the occurrence, the manner in which the accused inflicted injuries to her father-in-law, Sadiq Massih, armed with deadly weapons, allocating overt act to each of the accused and indicating the weapons in their possession and used by them. Her evidence stood further corroborated in the testimony of ocular witnesses, namely, Soma Devi, Prem Massih, Liaqat Massih and William Massih, who were also inflicted serious injuries by the accused at the time of occurrence, and David Massih, Kanta Devi and Gulzar Massih besides Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, who happened to be their guests at the time of occurrence and witnessed the incident with naked eyes.

21. There is also a built-in assurance in the testimony of the injured witnesses, who have emphatically and consistently stated to have identified the accused at the time of occurrence. The witnesses in their respective evidence unanimously stated that Sadiq Massih was sleeping in his house at 11.30/12 Oclock on the alleged night of occurrence when accused Rattan Lal, Joginder Lal, Romesh Lal, Shanker Dass, Daya Ram, Ram Dhan and Ganesh Dass forced their entry in to their house, armed with deadly weapons, namely, swords, khokhris, iron rod and dah. All the accused attacked deceased Sadiq Massih while in asleep on the cot and inflicted as many as 22 injuries with the weapons in their possession, actuated with criminal intention to cause his death. It is also in their evidence that when Soma Devi tried to intervene and save the deceased from the clutches of the accused, Ganesh Dass gave a blow with a sword and chopped off her right arm. It is further exacted from their evidence that when Prem Massih son of the deceased intervened, accused, Joginder Lal, Rattan Lal and Ganesh Dass, with their swords followed him up to his room and inflicted as many as five serious injuries on his body. In the meantime, when Gulzar Massih and David Massih, William Massih, Liaqat Massih and Kanta Devi raised alarm, the accused (Days Ram, Ram Dhan and Shanker Dass) attacked on them and also caused injuries with the weapons held by them. This clearly shows that all the accused had participated in the prosecution of their common object to liquidate deceased Sadiq Massih, after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, in inflicting injuries with the weapons in their possession. There is, thus, overwhelming evidence, provided by the eye witnesses including the injured, of the accused having caused injuries including the fatal one on the person of the deceased. No reason has been assigned why the witnesses would tell lie and falsely implicate the accused and save the real culprit if any one else than the accused was responsible in causing the death of Sadiq Massih and inflicting injuries to the other eye witnesses except Raj Rani, Mohan Massih, Darshan Massih. We have carefully perused the evidence of the eye witnesses including the injured with the help of the learned counsel for the appellants. We do not find the ocular evidence suffering from any infirmity so as to be doubted in any manner whatsoever.

22. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sadiq Massih was performed by Dr. Anayat Ullah Sheikh and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

1. Incised would on Rt. Ear 2.5" x " finished edge and sharp linear cut on Rt. Mastoid ".

2. Incised wound on the lt. parietal region L-shaped on lt. pariete-occipital region 4" x 2.5" x bone deep, bone full thickness gaping fissure fracture above down and posteriorly.

3. Six incised wound chop on frontal and Rt. Parieto-temporal region each 3" x 5" x " bone cut, antero-post into frontal & Rt. Temporal bone cut 2" x " deep.

4. Incised wound chop on Rt. Cheek region 4" x x 2" flapper downwords & towards Rt. Ear.

5. Linear ab. In front of Rt. Lat. Aspect of neck from Rt. Mastoid to sternal notch.

6. Ab. Across upper 3rd back to neck and over Rt. shoulder 10"-12" x ".

7. L-shaped cont. in front of Rt. shin upper 3rd 3" x "-2" direction outwards.

8. Incised wound on postero aspect of Rt. shin 2.5" x " x bone " cut.

9. Two parallel incised wound in front of Lt. shin mid 3rd 2.5" x " x " bone cut outwards.

10. Incised wound on inner aspect of lt. knee above downwards 4.5" x "-1" x bone periosteal cut.

11. Cont. across Rt. upper chat 7" x 3" x " gap of healthy skin between two parallel contusion.

12. Contusion on Rt. fore-arm 3" x 1" on upper 3rd of radial aspect. Blod stained palms.

13. Incised punctured wound on Rt. upper abd. 6" above the umbilicus & " lat. To mid line 2/5" x 1"-1" x 20" into abd. Ext. cm on back D2 level, 3" lat. To mid line, direction back backward down and to lt. traversion of stomach int. and pelvis of Rt. kidney.

14. Two cont. on abdomen across umbilical each 3"-5" x ".

15. Incised punctured wound on Rt. thigh in front 2-5" x "- " x 5" clean cut and a $ cm nick in peostem.

16. Imptint abrasion U.S. marker on inner aspect of Rt. thigh over an area of " x 3"-2.3" thick.

17. Abs. On Rt. upper back 5" x ".

18. Curves cont. on dorsem on Lt. wrist downwards 3" x ".

19. Seven incised punctures wound on mid. 3rd of lt. fore arm each 2-3 cm x 3 cm Rt.

20. Cont. on outer aspect, lt. fore-arm 2" x ".

21. Cont. on outer aspect Lt. arm 3" x " imprint.

22. Abdominal wall fact. & MS bruises in mid line and on Epigastrium. 2 lit of bl. in abdo. with clots.

23. In his post mortem report EXPW-AS, the doctor has noted as many as 22 injuries on the person of the deceased, most of which were incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons on the vital parts of the body. According to the doctor, death of the deceased was caused due to injuries to the brain, hemorrhage shock and was of 12 hours duration. The injuries found in the post mortem examination support the version of the eye witnesses.

24. The prosecution also examined Dr. O.N. Gupta, who examined the injured eye witnesses Soma Devi, Prem Massih, William Massih and Liaqat Massih, all having been inflicted serious injuries by the accused at the time of occurrence. In case of PW Soma Devi, the doctor recorded as many as five injuries, out of which two are incised wounds and one amputation of right hand at the level of the wrist, detail of which is given as under:

1. An amputation of right hand at the level of the wrist.

2. An incised wound 2" x 1" x 1" over right hip.

3. An incised wound 1" x " x $" over right shoulder.

4. An abrasion 6" x 1" over back at left lumber region.

5. A linear abrasion and starting from left side of back going downwards to right side 8".

25. Whereas in the case of PW Prem Massih, all the injuries given by the doctor are incised wounds and five in number, found at the time of examination, which are as follows:

1. An incised wound 2" x " x bone deep over the right parieto occipital region.

2. An incised wound 4" x " x bone deep over right side of throat.

3. An incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep over right leg at infraptellar region bleeding.

4. An incised wound 3" x 1" bone deep at post part of arm left elbow.

5. An incised wound 1" x " x bone deep at medial maleolus.

26. In the like manner, following two injuries with sharp-edged weapons were found on the person of Liaqat Massih vide certificate EXPW-ON/2:

1. An incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep at the posterior aspect of right forearm.

2. An incised wound V shaped each limb 2" x 1" and bone deep over dorsum of left big toe.

27. Three injuries in case of William Massih, out of which two are incised wounds, given by Dr. O.N. Gupta in his certificates EXPW-ON and as per detail given below:

1. An incised wound 2" x " x bone deep over posterial aspect of left hand medially.

2. An incised wound 2" " x bone deep over right frontal region.

3. Swelling and tenderness over left little finger movement restricted.

28. The evidence provided by the injured witnesses is further found in accord with the medical testimony and proves the prosecution case against the accused up to the hilt. The existence of the injuries on the person of these witnesses further corroborates the evidence provided that they were injured on the same day at the time of the occurrence, by the accused. The medical evidence, therefore, also proves the act of the accused falling within the meaning of murder, punishable under section 302 RPC, of deceased Sadiq Massih and further causing injuries to the eye witnesses when the latter intervened to save the deceased from the clutches of the accused. Further support to the prosecution version is found from the other incriminating circumstances brought on record. These incriminating circumstances are based on section 27 of the Evidence Act and pertain to the recovery of crime articles on the disclosure statements of the accused while in police custody during investigation and further identified by the eye witnesses in the Court, to be the same used by the accused in the commission of the offence. It was during investigation that Joginder Lal, Rattan Lal, Romesh Lal, Shanker Dass and Daya Ram made disclosure statements vide EXPW-ML/13, EXPW-ML/15, EXPW-ML/17, EXPW-ML/19, EXPW-ML/21, and their hidden weapons of offence were recovered by the Investigating Officer, at their instance, vide recovery memos EXPW-ML/14, EXPW-ML/16 EXPW-ML/18 EXPW-ML/20 and EXPW-ML/22 respectively, and proved the same being under his handwriting and prepared by him. The Investigating Officer further seized the blood stained shirt and Pyjama, which accused Rattan Lal was wearing at the time of occurrence, vide seizure memo EXPW-ML/28, besides pant and shirt of Joginder Lal, vide seizure memo EXPW-ML/29 and clothes of Romesh Lal accused, vide seizure memo EXPW-ML/30, and stood proved in his testimony being the witness of their seizure memos and the author of the seizure memos.

29. It is well settled proposition of law that the relevant incriminating circumstances, like the recovery of incriminating articles, at the instance of the accused, cannot be disbelieved merely on some fragile and flimsy grounds, such as the other attesting witnesses have not been produced and examined, and the seizure memos and the recoveries stood proved in the testimony of the Investigating Officer. The Court cannot overlook the realities and the evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot be whittled down as unbelievable merely because he is a Police Officer. All the incriminating circumstances, referred above, coupled with unimpeachable and consistent evidence provided by the eye witnesses having remained unshaken in their pungent cross-examination established beyond doubt and are sufficient to come to the conclusion that it were the appellants, who have committed the murder of deceased Sadiq Massih in pursuance of their common object to eliminate him by inflicting the injuries with deadly weapons in their possession on the ill-starred night of occurrence and also inflicted injuries to the witnesses present in the house, who came for his rescue. The participation of the accused in the crime has been unfolded in the ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses whose evidence has been found by us to be unimpeachable. It is found in the evidence of the eye witnesses that it was a moon lit night and bulbs were also incandescent at the time when the occurrence took place, in the light of which the witnesses identified the accused persons. Their evidence further shows that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly; all with deadly weapons clandestinely entered their house and started chopping the deceased in the mid night while the latter was in asleep on the cot. The appellants/accused had taken advantage of the helplessness of the deceased and caused his death by inflicting as many as 22 injuries, most of which were incised wounds on the vital parts of his body and in pursuance of their conspiracy to eliminate him. In view of these facts, the only inference forthcoming is the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime of causing the death of Sadiq Massih and causing injuries on the other members of the family when they endeavoured to intervene for the rescue of the deceased. Stress was laid by the accused/appellants counsel, Mr. Sunil Sethi, on the non-acceptance of the evidence tendered by the accused/appellants to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence, prayer is that the evidence provided by the witnesses is highly discrepant and suffers from material contradiction and, thus, cannot be relied upon for recording the conviction of the accused, for, major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Further plea put across by the accused/appellants counsel is to apply to the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. In Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197 , the Apex Court while dealing with the aspect of the contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses held as under:

"It is not that every discrepancy or contradiction matters much in the matter of assessing the reliability and credibility of a witness or the truthfulness of his version. Unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material and substantial and that too are in respect of vitally relevant aspects of the facts deposed, the witnesses cannot be straight away condemned and their evidence discarded in its entirety."

30. Thus, it follows that only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Minor/normal contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes pales and the sense of observation differs from person to person. Where the omissions found in the statement are of trivial nature, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony. Even if there is a contradiction in a part of the statement of a witness on any material point, that itself is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. It may further be pointed out that the normal course of human conduct would be that while narrating a particular occurrence, there may be minor discrepancies, and such discrepancies in law may render credential to the deposition. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to have to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and the environment in which such occurrence was witnessed and subsequently narrated in the Court. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation and due to mental disposition, such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and those are always there, however, honest and truthful the witness(es) may be. Normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a partys case. Therefore, maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar, is the view taken by the Apex Court in Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1965 .

31. The factual scenario highlighted and established by the prosecution in the evidence of the ocular witnesses further corroborated by the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances, unambiguously, shows how gruesome and macabre acts were perpetrated by the accused persons in causing the death of Sadiq Massih by inflicting injuries, as many as 22 in numbers, with dangerous weapons in their possession and further causing serious injuries to the members of the family coming for his rescue. There was a deliberate and planned act of annihilation of the elder member of the family and causing injuries to the others. All this happened on account of their previous enmity of a long drawn dispute over a parcel of land. Chain of evidence clearly depicts what their object was.

32. The accused/appellants counsel also contended that according to PW Soma Devi, the words uttered by the deceased when attacked by the accused were "Rattan Mujh Ko Na Maro, Mera Kaya Kasoor Hai". Whereas Prem Massih in his evidence stated that the last words of the deceased heard by him were "Na Maro, Na Maro", and similarly, according to William Massih, the deceased cried "Rattan Mat Maro, Rattan Mat Maro", and that there being a material contradiction in their evidence with regard to the last words uttered by the deceased, their evidence deserves to be discarded. As pointed out earlier, these are the normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory in the deposition of the witnesses and, thus, cannot be said to be a material contradiction, particularly, when the witnesses though described in the last words of the deceased heard by them, but carry and convey the same meaning. It can at the most be an omission, which normally occurs in truthful witnesses and, thus, is of inconsequential nature.

33. His further submission is that there has been contradiction as to the number of cots and the persons sleeping in the courtyard, in the evidence of eye witnesses. It is in the evidence of PW Soma Devi that there were only four cots on which she, her husband, Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih were sleeping. Whereas Raj Rani stated that PW Kanta Devi was sleeping in the courtyard, but the former in her evidence deposed to be sleeping in the room at the time of occurrence. Whereas evidence of Prem Massih is to the effect that the deceased, his mother, Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, Gulzar Massih, Liaqat Massih and William Massih were in the courtyard and sleeping on the cots at the time of occurrence. This stood contradicted by PW Darshan Massih, who has stated that alongwith the cot of Sadiq Massih, the cots of his wife and daughters were there, besides another cot on which he and Mohan Massih were sleeping. These contradictions do not relate to the genesis of the occurrence and cannot be said to be material contradictions sufficient to dub the evidence as incredible, when otherwise nothing is trotted out to cause a speck of doubt on their veracity when they are most probable and natural witnesses. It is, therefore, indisputably gatherable from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the contradictions pointed out by the accused/appellants counsel are not the contradictions in material particulars, but only omissions due to error of observation by different persons in a different manner and, thus, does not, in any manner, vitiate intrinsic value of evidence.

34. Another limb of arguments addressed by the accused/appellants counsel, Mr. Sunil Sethi, is that eye witnesses having failed to disclose specifically as to which of the accused caused which of the injuries, by which manner and by which weapons on the person of the deceased, makes their evidence doubtful and unbelievable. This plea, in our view, is also untenable where major portion of the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused even if the residue is deficient, the conviction can be maintained. The manner in which all the seven accused armed with deadly weapons forced their entry in the mid of night and started chopping off the helpless and hapless Sadiq Massih lying on his cot in deep slumber, in pursuance of a deep rooted conspiracy to liquidate him and thereby caused his death, it was humanly impossible for the witnesses in the environment of horror created by the acts of the accused to count the blows inflicted by each accused, with which weapon and in which manner on the deceased and as also on the other injured persons. Normal human conduct at the relevant time expected would be to either rescue the deceased or run away for safety. This is so, particularly, when all the witnesses were sleeping and suddenly woke up after hearing the screams and cries of the deceased and when intervened, were also seriously injured by the accused. This cannot, therefore, be said to be a major contradiction or infirmity in the evidence of the witnesses so as to render their testimony incredible.

35. Another vain attempt was made by the accused/appellants counsel for non-acceptance of the evidence of the eye witnesses, in submitting that some of them are under-trial prisoners and their evidence cannot be considered. This contention is also without any substance, as the evidence provided by these witnesses fully corroborates Raj Rani, the informant, and the other eye witnesses, who also sustained injuries in the occurrence alongwith these witnesses.

36. It was next contended by the accused/appellants counsel that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are related to each other and the deceased. Their evidence is smack of partisan and tainted and is, thus, insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused unless corroborated by independent testimony. It is further stated that the evidence of the related witnesses is interested and, therefore, cannot be believed for want of corroboration from independent source to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt. It is not in dispute that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased in the mid night of 27th/28th of April, 1988. The only witnesses possibly present were the family members, most of whom have also been caused injuries, besides causing the death of Sadiq Massih, in inflicting injuries with the deadly weapons in their possession. Fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased family is no ground to reject their evidence as untrustworthy. What is expected is to analyse and scrutinise the same with due care and caution before accepting or acting upon the same. The test of reliability is their cross-examination or any other evidence not showing any reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. Nothing is found in their depositions, which reveal any good reasons to reject their testimony as unreliable or untrustworthy. There is also nothing brought on record from any other evidence to show that as to why they should implicate the accused in the case falsely. Thus, rejection of their evidence on the ground that they are interested witnesses being in relation of deceased is not proper, is the view expressed by the Apex Court in Tapubha Bhagvanji v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 2794 .

37. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect 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 has been made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. Thus, the ground that the witnesses being close relations and consequently being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon, has no substance. Where the eye witnesses are the injured members of the family of the deceased, their evidence cannot be rejected merely on the ground being related to the deceased; when otherwise their evidence is credible and trustworthy. Independent corroboration, in our view, is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Credibility of the evidence is to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of prosecution story. When the account of eye witnesses is found credible and trustworthy and further is in accord with the medical testimony, probative value of the evidence is held eligible after putting into the scales of cumulative evaluation. The evidence, in each case, has to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and from the angle as to whether it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court to accept and that the question of reliability and credibility of a witness has to be decided with reference to the way he fared in cross-examination and the nature of impression created in the mind of the Court. There is no such universal rule as to warrant rejection of the evidence of a witness merely because he or she is related or interested. When the witnesses, though related, have received injuries in the occurrence, their presence at the time of occurrence is proved probable and natural and the evidence of such witnesses is found in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the probabilities of the case to be true, it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction of the accused.

Therefore, evidence of witnesses, who were either close relatives or close associates of the deceased can be trusted and relied upon to convict the accused. Their relationship, therefore, is not a factor to affect credibility of witnesses, who have also been inflicted serious injuries in the occurrence. Nothing is elicited in the pungent cross-examination of the eye witnesses to make their evidence unreliable and unbelievable. Even the defence has not suggested in their cross-examination as to the cause of the injuries to be different from the assaulted-ones, alleged to have been inflicted by the accused at the time of occurrence. The injuries found on the person of these witnesses being serious in nature, particularly, of Soma Devi proved to have been caused by the accused in the occurrence, could not be said to have been self-inflicted, so as to improbablize their presence on the spot. This contention is, therefore, also devoid of any force to merit acceptance.

38. Another plea taken by the accused/appellants counsel is that the FIR, in fact, was lodged on 28th April, 1988 when the signatures of the informant were taken on it at her residence when after the post-mortem the dead body was handed over to the family members for last rite ceremonies in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. The incontrovertible fact gatherable from the record is that the copy of the FIR was received in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at 4.30 p.m. after the FIR was filed on which the signatures of Raj Rani, informant, were obtained. It is not understandable as to how it could have reached in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28-4-1988. According to the Investigating Officer, PW Madan Lal Thapa, the FIR was recorded and registered at 10 minutes past 12.00 a.m. in the night on 28th April, 1988 on the information of PW Raj Rani and her signatures were also obtained on FIR itself. Though PW Raj Rani in her statement said that her signatures were not obtained in the Police Station but were obtained on the spot. If the version of Raj Rani is to be accepted, then her signatures could have been obtained on FIR at 5.00 p.m. on 28th April, 1988. This version does not seem to be correct in view of the fact that the copy of the FIR had already been received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at 4.30 p.m. on 28th April, 1988. This omission or error in the statement of the informant may be due to normal error of memory and would not leave any dent in the prosecution case or affect the credibility of the witnesses, particularly, when it was not put to the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination who alone could have explained it. This contention, in our view, is also not tenable.

39. As regards the motive for the commission of the crime by the accused, it is settled law that where the evidence of the eye witnesses is available, the question/proof of motive becomes irrelevant.

40. As regards the plea of alibi set up by Daya Ram, it has rightly been rejected in the teeth of evidence produced for the defence, which could neither be shown to be genuine nor credible and can be conveniently held not to be of any quality to inspire any confidence in the Court. Both the witnesses, namely, Bhagat Ram and Man Singh, examined by Daya Ram, accused, stated that accused Daya Ram had come to the house of Bhagat Ram to condole the sad demise of the son of Bhagat Ram in the evening and remained there through out the night. In the absence of any such plea taken by the accused in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C., this seems an afterthought with the purposive attempt to raise the plea of alibi. This plea otherwise also stands whittled down as unbelievable and unacceptable, as the eye witnesses, most of whom are injured persons, have in their evidence unanimously stated to have identified the accused including Daya Ram accused at the scene of occurrence. This contention is also of no avail to the defence and, thus, cannot be accepted.

41. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants, further submitted that though the occurrence had taken place in the heart of the village, but none had been examined by the prosecution in the case. Admittedly, none has been examined from the close vicinity of the place of occurrence. PW Soma Devi in her evidence categorically stated that all the persons in the neighbourhood had witnessed the occurrence, but did not come forward, as they belonged to the Baradari of the accused. This fact further stood confirmed by PW Gulzar Massih that the people did not come at the place of occurrence on account of casteism, as the accused belonged to one community and the deceased belonged to another and there was a litigation between the parties over a piece of land and several civil and criminal cases were pending in the Courts. These witnesses have not been cross-examined by the defence with regard to the non-appearance of the villagers from the vicinity at the scene of occurrence because of casteism, so as to render the explanation to be false or otherwise proved by producing evidence, in this behalf, in defence.

42. It was further submitted by Mr. Sunil Sethi that in the absence of valid explanation for delay in recording the statements of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer, clearly suggests that it was a deliberate attempt of marking a time with a view to decide the shape to be given to the case and eye witnesses to be introduced. In the present case, Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of Raj Rani, David Massih, Sabir Massih, Gulzar Massih and Kanta Devi on 28-04-1988 and the statements of the rest of the witnesses were recorded on 04-05-1988, as is evident from the record. This clearly shows that statements of most of witnesses were recorded on 28-04-1988 when FIR was registered. Non-examination of the remaining witnesses on 28-04-1988 could only well be explained by the Investigating Officer. No such question has been put to him in his cross-examination with regard to the delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses after the occurrence. Even otherwise, failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statements of the witnesses, who remained hospitalized after the incident, on 28-04-1988 would not itself make the prosecution story doubtful when their evidence is fully corroborated by the informant Raj Rani and other eye witnesses of the occurrence, whose statements were recorded on 28-04-1988 without losing any time after the occurrence. When the evidence of the witnesses supports each other on all material particulars, the delay in recording the statements of some of the witnesses during investigation, in such circumstances, would be inconsequential.

43. The trial court has dealt with the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses elaborately and found the prosecution case proved beyond any reasonable doubt for the conviction of the accused/appellants. The trial court has relied upon the testimony of the eye witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence has been found probable and natural, for having been inflicted injuries upon them except Raj Rani, Mohan Massih and Darshan Massih, besides causing death of the deceased chopping him with deadly weapons on the alleged night of occurrence and their ocular testimony further corroborated in the medical evidence and other incriminating circumstances.

44. On a careful appreciation, estimation and assessment of the evidence assembled during trial by the prosecution, we are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court and no fault can be found with the judgment of the Session Court. The conviction of the accused/appellants alongwith sentence passed thereon is confirmed and upheld, and appeal is dismissed in resultant thereof.

45. Both the appeal as well as the reference made by the trial court are hereby disposed of accordingly.