2 ‘ 4‘ Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003 (2) The allegations are that on 5.12.2002 at about 5.15 p.m., he committed murder of Tikesh Kumar Sahu' by using a sword like iron weapon. The incident was witnessed by complainant Nandkumar (PW-1). Nandkumar immediately went to Supela police station and gave dehati nalishi (Ex.—P/1), based on which, First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) was registered. (3) On such information, the Investigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/11) to the Pa’nchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P/11-A) on the body of the deceased. He also seized blood stained soil & plain soil from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/4. Dehati merg intimation was recorded under Ex P/5 After taking accused/appellant Into custody, his memorandum (Ex —P/8) was recorded u/s 27 of the Evrdence Act and the weapon of offence was seized from the possessron of the appellant under Ex.-P/9. The cloths of the appellant were seized under Ex.-P/10. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its post-mortem to Govt. Hospital, Durg, where the post—mortem . examination was conducted by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9), who prepared his report Ex.-P/12. The Autopsy Surgeon found following external injuries on the body of the deceased: (i) One incised wound, size 8 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left parietal region, bone dee, bone was also cut, brain membrane was seen; (ii) One laceratedwound, size 5 cm x 1 cm on the upper part of skull, with underline fracture; (iii) One incised wound, size 8 cm x 2 cm on the occipital bone, bone was cut; (iv) One incised wound, size 6 cm x 1 cm obliquely placed on the left ear pinna; 5 (v) One incised wound, size 31/2 cm x 1/2 cm below the left ear; (vi) One incised wound, size 11/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm on the back portion of left mandible; (vii) One incised wound, size 9 cm x 1A cm on the left portion of neck' (viii) One rncrsed wound srze 3 cm on the left portion of neck Seven linear incised wOunds, size in between 4 cm to 15 cm on neck, clavicle‘and sternum region; p 3 Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003 (x) One incised wound, size 4 cm x 1/2 cm on the Ieft shoulder & (xi) One bluish wound, size 8 cm x 1/2 cm on front portion of Ieft thigh. On internal examination, he noticed that there was depressed fracture on left parietal bone. Blood clots were present around the injury. Sub—dural haematoma was present around the brain. There was fracture on cranial fossa. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that all the injuries were ante— mortem in nature and were caused by hard & sharp object. He further opined that the cause of death was shock due to extensive head injuries and haemorrhage, and it was homicidal in nature. (4) ‘ ln further investigation, the seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.— P/18, from where, a report was obtained. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on all the articles except plain soil. \\ (5) After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was tiled in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who in turn, committed the matter to the Sessions Judge, Durg, where the trial was conducted and the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. The conviction of the appellant is bas‘ed upon the evidence of Nandkumar (PW-1) supported by the evidence of Pintu Kumar Sao (PW- (6) 2), Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3), Rajesh Khanna (PW-4) and Smt. xNeera Bai (PW-5). A, (7) Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Nandkumar (PW-1) that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with an iron equipment, due to which, the deceased received injuries. His such evidence is supported by the evidence of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9), who conducted the post-mortem examination and found as many as 11 injuries on the'body of the deceased. He opined that the injuaies were ante-mortem in nature and 4 Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003 were caused by hard and sharp object; the cause of death was shock due to head injuries and haemorrhage and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (8) It was argued by Shri Jain that the eye witness namely Nandkumar (PW—1) was uncle of the deceased and Smt. Neera Bai (PW-5) was the sister-in-Iaw (Bhabhi) of the deceased, therefore, they were interested witness and their testimonies cannot be relied on. He also argUed that it does not come clearly in the'examination-in—chief of Nandkumar (PW-1) that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, therefore, on this ground also, his presence on the scene of occurrence, at the time of incident, was doubtful. (9) In Harbans Kaur and another —Vs- State of Hamana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074, it was held that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. (10) ln Namdeo —Vs- State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835, the Apex Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim ,of the crime cannot be characterized as ‘interested’. The term ‘interested’ postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect ‘interest’ in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Apex Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an ‘interested’ witness. He is a ‘natural’ witnessaHis evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. .lf on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the ‘sole’ testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. \ @ Criminal ApEal No. 1250 of 2003 (11) Recently, in the matter of Sonelal —Vs- State of M.P., 2008 AIR SCW 7988, the Apex Court again said that merely because the eye witnesses are family members their evidence cannot be per-se discarded. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. lt is more often than not that a relation would not conceal 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. (12) Therefore, this argument cannot find favour that the testimonies of relative witnesses cannot be relied on, only on the ground that they were the relatives of the deceased. However their evidence is to be scrutinized with due care and caution and if such evidence is found credible in appreciation, the conviction can well be based on their such testimonies. (1 3) PW-1, Nandkumar, is uncle of the deceased. He deposed tat at 5- 5.15 p.m.;‘ he saw the dead body of his nephew lying at the place of occurrence and the appellant was standing there having a black coloured weapon in his hands. He immediately informed his brother. One Rajesh informed the police on telephone. Rinku Paul (PW-3) had caught the appellant along with weapon. Though, he did not depose in so many words, in his examination—in-chief, that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with the said weapon, but, in cross examination by defence, he had clarified all the things. In Para-9 of his cross examination, he very specifically stated that when he was returning after urination, he saw that the appellant was standing towards the head of the deceased having the weapon in his hands. He categorically denied the suggestion that he had not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. He deposed in clear words that he had seen the appellant giving last assault to the deceased on his head when the deceased was lying on the ground. It is on this evidence, it has been argued by Shri Jain that this has come in the cross examination only, therefore, it creates a doubt. We are afraid to accept the arguments. The simple principle of appreciation is that the entire evidence of a witness is to be looked into applying the theory of omissions and exaggerations and in such appreciation, if the h 6 Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003 evidence is found trustworthy, there is no harm in relying on such evidence. We cannot read the statement of a witness in piece—meai while appreciating his evidence. it was also asked from PW—1 that he had mentioned in the report (Ex.-P/1) that he had not seen the occurrence and Rinku had seen the occurrence, but this witness had denied this. When we look into the contents of dehati nalishi (Ex.-P/1), Iodged by this witness, we find that it has been categorically mentioned that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and there is no such omission, Though a lengthy cross examination has been done by the defence against such evidence of PW—1 but nothing material could be brought on record on which his testimony may be doubted. The incident took place in gali at about 5-5.15 p.m. and presence of a person who is running a tea-shop near the place of incident can hardly be doubted. The trial Court had rightly relied on the testimony of this witness and we do not find any illegality in it. (14) PW-2, Pintu Kumar Sao, deposed thatjustgprior to the incident, he had seen the appellant scuffling with the deceased and he had separated them. PW—3, Devender Singh @ Rinku, deposed that on 5.12.2002 at about 5.05 p.m., he was in his shop. He heard the commotion and ran towards the place of occurrence, where he saw Tikesh lying dead and the appellant was present there having a knife in his hands. Almost similar is the evidence of PW-4, Rajesh Khanna, who deposed that when he reached to the scene of occurrence he saw that the deceased was lying in injured condition and the appellant was standing there with a weapon in his hands. The mother of the appellant was trying to stop him. He also heard that the deceased used to tease sister of the appellant, therefore, the appellant had murdered the deceased with a sharp edged weapon. PW—5, Smt. Neera Bai, is the sister-in-law (Bhabhl) of the deceased. She deposed that on 5.12.2002 at about 5.00 p.m., she was in her house. Somebody called her brother-in-law (deceased Tikesh), on which, he went out from the house. Thereafter the maid-servant of the house told her that somebody is assaulting her brother-in-law. She immediately came out from the house and saw that her brother-in-law was lying dead and the appellant, his mother, brother and sister were standing there. The v u Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003 n ’D r; appellant was having the weapon in his hands. The evidence of these witneSses, in fact, corroborates the evidence of PW-1, Nandkumar. It also independently establish that they had seen the appellant standing near the dead body of the deceased having an arm in his hands. (15) Sister of the appellant namely Ku. Preeti has been examined as DW-1. She deposed that the appellantis her real brother. On 5.12.2002 at about 4.45 p.m, she was returning to her house from school. Deceased Tikesh met on the way near her house and caught her hands. He was having some arm in his hands. He requested her to accompany him and has said that if she would not accompany, then he will die or he will kill her brother. Thereafter, she went inside her house. But by that time, her brother came over there and she cannot say as to what happen thereafter. Even if we rely on such evidence of DW-1, it goes to support the case of prosecution to some extent. At least it proves that the deceased and the appellant met together at the place of occurrence and thereafter the deceased died. ln fact, the defence had tried to make out a story that the incident occurred on account of teasing of the sister of the appellant by the deceased. But by this only, it cannot be said that the appellant would kill the deceased so brutally by causing multiple incised wounds and the gravity of the offence would come down to some extent. (.16) We nnd that there is ample evidence on record to hold that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant with an intention to cause death and the trial Court has rightly determined that he was guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The finding of the trial Court is based upon the cogent, clinching and reliable evidence. 5 (17) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. l Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge \r Sd/. §,' CHLEF JUSTICE t Vatti