S.D. Anand, J.

1. This appeal at the hands of Surender son of Gulab Singh is directed against judgment dated 22.2.1999, vide which he was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The prosecution allegations, as upheld by the learned Trial Court at the trial, were as under:

The appellant had cordial relations with deceased Raj Singh, husband of PW 10 Mst. Sumitra. They were also on visiting terms with each other. Apart therefrom, there were certain money dealings as well, between them. About one month prior to the impugned occurrence, the appellant raised a loan of Rs. 2000/-from Raj Singh for the purpose of purchase of certain electrical appliances with a promise to repay it within a month. However, in spite of repeated reminders in the context of repayment, the appellant did not make the re-payment.

2. On the relevant day, at about 2 PM, the appellant visited Raj Singh at latters house. In the course of conversation, Raj Singh reiterated his demand for repayment of the loan. On account of the insistence on the part of Raj Singh for the repayment of the loan by the appellant, the latter felt visibly annoyed and there was verbal altercation between them. Thereafter, the appellant returned to his house. However, the appellant again went to the house of Raj Singh on that very day at about 8 PM and requested Raj Singh to accompany him for obtaining the loan repayment. All this had taken place in the presence of PW 10 Mst. Sumitra. Raj Singh accompanied the appellant. After sometime thereof, Mst. Sumitra went over in the neighbourhood to participate in the Sangeet ceremony in connection with the marriage of grand daughter of Harnarain. On the return journey to her house at about 10.30 PM, when Mst. Sumitra was passing by the side of the house of the Sarpanch, she heard the cries of her husband who was raising a Raula by saying Bachao, Bachao. Then, she spotted that the appellant was giving brick blows on the mouth of Raj Singh. The number of blows given was 4/5. Besides, Mst. Sumita, the occurrence was also witnessed by Lal Chand PW and Desh Raj (not examined at the trial and given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellant). Lal Chand also attempted to rescue Raj Singh from the appellant but the latter pushed him back and fled the spot. However, while fleeing from the spot, the appellant left the brick, he was hitting Raj Singh with, at the spot. Raj Singh was transported to General Hospital, Narnaul in an unconscious state by a four wheeler which happened to come to the spot from the side of Singhana. Raj Singh died at about 2/2.30 AM. The offence was notified to the police by Mst. Sumitra, vide her statement Ex.PH/1 which she gave to the police at about 4 or 5 AM in the hospital.

3. The prosecution examined PW1 Head Constable Suresh Chand, PW2 Constable Ranbir Singh and PW 3 Constable Ajesh Kumar, PW 4 Prahlad, draftsman, PW 5 Dr. Deepak Parkash, PW 6 Satbir Singh, PW7 Sub Divisional Inspector, GRP,Jind Arun Singh, PW8 Singh Raj, PW9 Dr. N.K. Garg, PW 10 Mst. Sumitra, PW 11 Lal Chand and PW 12 Inspector Raghbir Singh in support of its case. PW1 Head Constable Suresh Chand, PW2 Constable Ranbir Singh and PW 3 Constable Ajesh Kumar tendered their affidavits, Ex.PA, Ex.PB and Ex.PC respectively, in to evidence. PW4 Prahlad Sharma, a draftsman in the Civil Courts at Narnaul, had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD on 1.5.1995. PW 5 Dr. Deepak Parkash had (along with Dr. N.K. Garg and Dr. S.S. Sharma) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Raj Singh and found the following injuries on the dead body:

1. There was a stitched wound measuring about 3 cms in length, present on the left side of face lateral to lip.

2. There was a stitched wound of the size of 1 cm in length, present on the right side of the face, just below the eye.

3. A stitched wound, extending from upper lip to left side of naso labial fold and nose, measuring 7 cms in length.

4. Right eye was swollen, blue coloured and contused. On dissection, Sub conjectival, haemorrhage was present and eye lib was swollen. On opening the skull, free blood was present in the cranial cavity. On further dissection, blood mixed with cerebrospinal fluid was flowing outside the skull.

4. Dr. Parkash opined, on the basis of the above, that the cause of death was extensive haemorrhage and shock, as a result of injury to vital organ like brain. The injuries were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. The injuries were further described to be antemortem in nature. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Thereafter, after perusing Ex.PN (report of the Chemical Examiner), Dr. Parkash reiterated the cause of death as already indicated. He , however, added that Ex.PN indicated that the deceased had consumed Alcohol.

5. PW 6 Satbir Singh had attested memo Ex.PG vide which blood stained earth and a half piece of brick were lifted by the police from the spot and sealed and the seal, after use, was handed over to him.

6. PW 7 Arun Singh, then posted as SHO, Police Station, Narnaul, had partly investigated this case. On receipt of ruqqa (i.e. Statement of Mst. Sumitra ) at 5.15 AM, he had recorded formal FIR Ex.PH. He, thereafter, went over to Civil Hospital, Narnaul, where the inquest proceedings were completed by SI Raghbir Singh. It is thereafter that PW 7 Arun Singh took over the investigation from SI Raghbir Singh. He inspected the spot, lifted the blood stained earth and one half piece of brick from the spot and had also prepared the rough site plan Ex.PJ of the spot. He had also examined Des Raj, Inder Singh, Sabir and Lal Chand under Section 161 Cr.PC. PW 8 Singh Raj had attested disclosure statement Ex.PK which had been made by appellant Surender Singh to the police in his presence. He also attested recovery memo Ex.PK/1 vide which a Kurta (Ex.P2) and Payjama (Ex.P3) was got recovered by the appellant from his house in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by him. PW9 Dr.N.K. Garg had medico-legally examined Raj Singh on 30.4.1995 on latters arrival at the hospital and had found the following injuries on his person:

1. 3 cms x .5 cm muscle deep, lacerated wound was present on the face, left side, lateral to lip on the cheek. Bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.

2. 1 cm x .2 cm muscle deep, lacerated wound was present on the lower eye lib, right side.

3. The complaint of pain and bleeding was present from the mouth, upper and lower jaws. Upper jaws teeth loss and Shaky. Mouth could not be examined due to unconscious of the patient. Referred to Dental Surgeon for opinion. Corresponding injury was present on the upper lip, 4 cms x .7 cm muscle deep, lacerated wound was present on the upper lip, extending towards mycosutanceous junction.

7. On appraisal of the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.PN, Dr. Garg opined that cause of death in this case was extensive haemorrhage and shock, as a result of injuries to vital organ i.e. Brain which was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. The injuries were found to be ante-mortem in character. It was further found that the injured had consumed Alcohol. That opinion the doctor had given on the basis of the report received from the Chemical Examiner. PW 10 Mst. Sumitra wife of Raj Singh deceased had witnessed the day time altercation between the latter and the appellant and it was in her presence that Raj Singh was taken by the appellant on the pretext of repaying the loan. She had further spotted the appellant giving injuries to her husband with a brick when she was returning from the house of Harnarain where she had gone to attend Sangeet ceremoney in connection with the marriage of a grand child of the host.

8. PW 11 is Lal Chand, the other eye-witness. PW 12 Inspector Raghbir Singh, then posted as Sub Inspector, Narnaul, had partly investigated this case.

9. Ex.PN/1, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was tendered into evidence. The appellant alleged false implication in this case with the following averment:

I am innocent. I have falsely been implicated in this case by the police at the instance of the complainant. The plot of my father and the plot of Sultant Singh, father of Lal Chand PW is adjacent and 5/6 months before the present alleged occurrence, Lal Chand PW and his father Sultatn Singh dug our foundation in our plot, upon which, I objected, and then Lal Chand PW threatened me for teaching a lesson at an appropriate time. In fact, Raj Singh deceased was a drunkard and used to remain under the influence of liquor and while under the influence of liquor he sustained injuries by falling on the road side. All the P.Ws are near relatives.

10. DW1 Suraj Bhan and DW2 Mool Chand were examined by the appellant to support the plea taken up by the appellant. We have been taken through the file by the Learned Counsel for the parties. We have also heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. In order to obtain the invalidation of the impugned finding of conviction, the Learned Counsel for the appellant indicated a grievance that the entire prosecution plea must out-rightly fail because it is illogical to expect that a borrower would do away with the lender just on account of latters alleged insistence on the repayment of Rs. 2000/-. The motive averred by the prosecution was described by the Learned Counsel for the appellant to be too trivial to admit acceptance.

12. We do not agree. The reactions by differfent human beings to a given situation would differ from man to man. An amount of Rs. 2000/-may have no significance for an affluent person. At the same time, it may be a high amount for a person who is financially not well off. The `trivial character of the amount cannot be said to have any significance in assessing the reaction on the part of the appellant.

13. The Learned Counsel for the appellant, then, criticised the impugned finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge by arguing that the first informant PW 10 Mst. Sumitra had not been able to prove that her availability at the spot at that time of night was natural inasmuch as there is no convincing evidence on the file to prove that there indeed was a function at the house of Harnarain on that day. In that very context, it was argued that both the averred eye witnesses i.e. Lal Chand and Des Raj are related to the deceased. It was argued that the testimony of relation witnesses in the given circumstances does not inspire confidence.

14. The averment, with regard to Lal Chand and Desh Raj being relation witnesses vis-a-vis the deceased, cannot be denied. In the course of her cross-examination PW 10 Smt. Sumitra conceded that Sultan, Singh Raj, Surat Singh and Sheotaj are real brothers of her father-in-law Suraj Bhan, that they are sons of Sheo Karan; that Lal Chand PW is son of Sultan aforementioned and that Desh Raj PW (cited but not examined) is a son of Singh Raj. It is in her testimony that Satbir PW is a son of Sheotaj aforementioned. There can, thus, be no manner of doubt that the witnesses cited by Mst. Sumitra as eye-witnesses are related to her and to the deceased.

15. Having said that, we would like to clarify that there is no support for the advocated view that the testimony of relation witnesses deserves outright discard. All that we are ordained by law is to scrutinize the testimony of relation witnesses little carefully. Examined on that touch stone, we find that the testimony of Sumitra PW and Lal Chand cannot be relied upon to uphold the impugned finding of conviction. It may be noticed in that context that Desh Raj was not examined at the trial and was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellant. Thus, the prosecution took upon itself the exclusive jurisdiction to decide upon the loyality or otherwise of that witness thereby denying to the Court the jurisdictioin to record the finding with regard to the winning over or otherwise of Desh Raj PW.

16. Insofar as Lal Chand is concerned, it is in the statement of Mst. Sumitra that he endeavoured to rescue Raj Singh from the clutches of the appellant but that the appellant pushed him back and fled the spot. Lal Chand PW 11 explained his availability at that point of night by testifying that he was present at the plot adjacent to the residential plot of Harinarain where sweets were being prepared and he had gone there to help in the preparation of sweets. He does not tell the Court the expertize or the special interest which qualified him to render assistance in the matter of preparation of sweets. The non-furnishing of a clarification in the relevant behalf on the part of Lal Chand is to be appreciated in the light of the statement of none else or other than Mst. Sumitra to the effect that " No other lady from our familyhood had gone to attend the sangeet ceremony at the house of Harnarain.". Both i.e. PW 10 Mst. Sumitra and PW 11 Lal Chand adopted an evasive attitude when they were called upon to indicate whether Raj Singh was a big boozer and had also consumed liquor on that day. Mst. Sumitra denied, as incorrect, a suggestion that Raj Singh sustained injuries by falling by the road side while he was under the influence of liquor. PW 11 Lal Chand stated that he had no idea if Raj Singh had consumed liquor on that day or not.

17. Their response is falsified by the viscera finding, in the course whereof the Chemical Examiner had opined that the deceased had consumed liquor. Lal Chand would want the Court to believe that he did not chase the appellant and that he (Lal Chand) did not sustain injuries on being pushed back by the accused. It is also in his testimony that on his raising alarm, a number of persons were attracted to the spot. It would, thus, appear unnatural that Lal Chand who was a close relation of Mst. Sumitra and Raj Singh did not at all try to chase the appellant and he also did not sustain any injury on being pushed back by the appellant. It would also defy logical acceptance that the appellant did not hurt Lal Chand even though the former possessed a brick and he could anticipate that his getting caught at the spot would worsen things for him. Mst. Sumitra told the Court that she did not point out the place of occurrence either to the police or the draftsman or Patwari. As against it, the Investigating Officer (PW 7 Arun Singh) informed the Court that he had been to and inspected the spot in the company of Mst. Sumitra and other witnesses. Lal Chand does not say that he was available at the spot at the time the police inspected it. Wherefrom the relevant particulars were indicated by the Investigating Officer in the site plan is not apparent from the file.

18. It was incumbent for the prosecution to prove that there indeed was a function at the house of Harnarain on the relevant day and at the relevant point of time. It is only proof of that fact which would have made the presence of Mst. Sumitra, Lal Chand and Desh Raj at the spot natural. Insofar as the Investigating Officer (PW 12 Inspector Raghbir Singh) is concerned, he categorically indicated that "During the period of my investigation, I did not record evidence with regard to the marriage of grand-daughter of Harnarain, as this case was also investigated by the SHO Arun Kumar Nehra." The suggestion thereof was that the relevant evidence may have been collected by Arun Nehra. That police official appeared as PW 7. There is not even a word in the course of his testimony to the effect that he examined any witness in proof of the factum of a function which was being held at the house of Harnarain on the relevant day at the relevant point of time.

19. On his own showing, Raj Singh and the appellant had verbal altercation during day time. This verbal altercation occurred when the appellant was visiting the house of Raj Singh and the latter reiterated the demand for repayment of the loan which the former had raised from him. In the normal course of things, if a loanee is to repay the amount, he would come over and pay it up to the lendor. It would appear unnatural that a loanee would take along the lender late in the evening to `enable him to make the payment. Why the payment could not be made there and then defies logical comprehension. Assuming for the sake of arguments that things had indeed taken place in that way only, the non return of her husband to the house within a reasonable time ought to have aroused the suspicion of Mst. Sumitra about his welfare, particulars when she was cognizant that the appellant was visibly annoyed at tension of the day time verbal altercation. In that view of things, it would be unnatural to expect that a wife would go over to attend sangeet ceremony at the house of a non-relation. That attitude of her would indicate that she was completely unconcerned about the welfare of her husband. That is not an eventualaity which is conceived in a conventional Indian society.

20. The following facts are, thus, apparent from the record:

i) Though PW 10 Smt. Sumitra and PW 11 Lal Chand denied that the deceased was a drunkard and was under the influence of liquor on the relevant day too, the result of the viscera proves that the deceased had consumed liquor.

ii) The evidence regarding Raj Singh having accompanied the appellant to enable the latter to `repay the loan to the former is not in accord with the natural human conduct.

iii) The availability of Mst. Sumitra and Lal Chand at the spot at that odd hour of night (10.30 PM) is not explained and the Investigating Officer conceded that he had not collected evidence in proof of the fact that a function was indeed being held at the house of Harnarain on that day. This aspect required absolute clarification in view of the defence plea that the deceased had sustained injuries by falling by the road side under the influence of liquor.

iv) Lala Ram Sarpanch, in front of whose house the spot is situated, was not examined at the trial.

v) There is also no convincing evidence on the record to prove that electric light was available at the spot to enable proper identification of the culprit.

21. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal shall stand allowed. The finding of conviction shall stand set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge with which he was charged.