DIVISION BENCH*: DEATH REFERENCE N02 OF 2002 Sfafe of Chhaf‘l’isgorh Versus Komal Prasad Pandey AND Komal Pmsad Porn-jay Versus CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.595 OF 200? sfa‘fe of Chhaffisgarh .TUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sdl- i L.C.BHADOO Judge 11%; AuausT 2003 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC gx agwz/ a vi 3d,- Chief Justce FOR JUDGMENT ON 7m AUGUST 200b PUbl Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge WE g’ ”Huts-U3! zuus H16H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPLliR (6.6.) HON'BLE SHRI K.H.N. KURANGA, CJ & HON‘BLE SHRI LC. BHADOO, J. (Made by fi‘le Sécond Addi‘rional Sessions Judge, Fasf Track, Mungeli, Disfricf Eiiaspur Lmdar’ Secfbn 366 of ’rhe Code of Criminal Procedure) E , i HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE (IHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (CG) DIVISION BENCH*: HON'BLE SHRI K.H.N. KURANGA, CJ' DEATH REFERENgE No.2 OF 2002 (Made by The Seco'rud Addi‘rionai 5éssions Judge, Fnsf Track, Mungeli, Dish-is? Bilaspur under Secfion 366 cf The Code of Criminal Procedure) Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh Thraugh: ?e!ice 51‘a‘rion, Pa‘l'haria Disfr'icf: Bilaspur. VZI‘SUS Komai Prasad Pandey son af Ranancnd Pmdzy, Aged abouf 28 years Resident of Badam (B) Pence 5m‘hm PafhaFIa Distruc? Bilaspur Present Mr. Ashok Verma, Depufy Advoca‘re Genera! for fhe Stafe. Mr. K.A. Ansari, Advocafe for fhe accused. Criminal Agpeai No.595 cf 2002 Komal Prasad Pandev San " “amanand Pandey, Aggd gbnut 28 ggrs RgSIdenf of Badara (B) Ponce Sfo'hon Painarlo District Bllaspur vi: G Shit of Chha'l'fisgarh Through: Police Stafion, Pafhario Disfric‘l': Bilaspur Versus »::4 Present Mr. Shoshank Shrivasfava, Advocafe for The appeilanf, G Mr.-Ashok Vmo, Dy. Advoca‘i‘e Generai for fhe Sfai‘e/respondenf. er y ;A I; 2 e9 JUDGMENT (Delivered on ;Z$‘ of August 2003) 9 The following judgmenT of The CourT was delivered by L. 6'. Qimdoo, J - 1. Accused Komal Prasad Pandey was separaTely Tried in Three Sessions 1 Trials namely, S.T.No.331 of 1999 Le. 'rhe presen‘r case, S.T.Nos.330 ‘ of 1999 & 326 of 1999 by The Second Addifioml Sessions Judge, Fas'r Track Court, Mungeli, Dis‘rric‘r Bi!aspur for fhe commission of The offences punishable under Section 302 of ‘fhe Indian Penal Code 3nd Sec‘i'ion 25 (1-B) (b) read wifn Sec‘rion 4 of The Arms ACT for commiTTing The murders of Raghuvar Prasod Pondey, Ashu‘i'osh Pon‘dey - son‘of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey and ShanTi Boi - wife of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey. The learned AddiTionaI Sessions Judge by his JudgmenT daTed 17m April, 2002 afTer holding accused Komal Prosad Pandey guilTy of The offences under SecTion 302 of The Indian Penal Code and also for The offence under SecTion 25 (1-B) (b) read wiTh SecTion 4 of The Arms AcT in each of The Three sessions Trials, senTenced him To deaTh for The offence under SecTion 302 of The Indian Penal Code and To undergo rigorous imprisonmenT for Three years and pay a fine of Rs.500/—, in defaulT of paymenT of fine ‘ , To furTher undergo rigorous imprisonmenT for Two monThs for The offence under SecTion 25 (1—B) (b) read wiTh Section 4 of The Arms ACT in each of The case. . Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2002 has been filed by accused/appellanT Komal Prasad Pandey againsT The said convicTions and senTences passed againsT him by The Second AddiTional Sessions Judge, FasT Track CourT, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.331 of 1999. On The oTher hand, The learned AddiTional Sessions Judge has made DeaTh Reference No.2 of 2002 To This CourT for confirmaTion of The deaTh senTence imposed by him on The accused./// /../,,/ #5 K/ 3; This judgmen‘r shall dispose of fhe aforesaid appeal filed by fhe accused and The reference made -by The learned Addifionai Sessions Judge. 4i The houses of The accused and The family of The deceased are i adjacen'l' 1'0 each ofher, even Their courTyard is common i.e. wi‘l’houT ; any parTiTion wall EnTry To The house of The deceased family is l Through The common gaTe and courTyard, which is in from of The house of The accused. The faTher of The accused namely, Ramanand gandey and deceased Raghuvar Prasad Pandey were cousin broTher-s. 5g The prosecuTion case in brief is ThaT on 13+h June, 1999 aT abouT 9.035 a. m. in yiiiage Badara (B), Police STaTion PaTharia, accused Komal Prasad Pandey- commiTTed The murder of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey aT Ram Sagar Pond of village Badara (B) assaulTing him wiTh a sword. Prior To This, aT 9 a.m. he commiTTed The murder of AshuTosh Pandey in The courTyard of his own house by assaulTing wiTh a sword. ThereafTer aT 9.10 a.m. he commiTTed The murder of ShanTi Bai near The house of one Vijay Sharma by assaulTing wiTh The same sword. AT 13.00 hours SmT. RaTna Pandey - wife of deceased AshuTosh Pandey lodged a reporT aT PaT'naria Police STaTion alleging ThaT she was residing aT village Badara (B) and she was a housewife. On 13m June, 1999 in The morning she was cooking The food. Her husband AshuTosh Pandey and faTher-in-law Raghuvar Prasgd Pandey had gone To Take baTh a? The Ram Sagar Pond. Her moTheréin-Iaw, afTer asking her To cook The vege‘i'ables, lefT The house To waTch Krishna Serial on Television in The house of Vijay Sharma. AT abouT 9.00 a.m. when her son Sunny was noT found, she wenT in search of him To The Terrace of The house and saw Thai her son Sunny aged abouT 1% years was playing on The Terrace. All of a sudden she heard The sound (Bhad) of falling of someThing. When she looked Towards The side where The sound was heard, she saw ThaT Koma-l Prasad Pandey was assaulTing her hushand in his courTyard wiTh a sword and her husband ' was lying on The ground. His neck was cuT. On seeing her husband in // / / / / / /\ / a poo! of bload she became perfurfbed and affer Taking her son wi‘rh her, she came down from 'rhe fer-race of her- house and en‘rered The ki‘rchen. Thereafter she became unconscious. Af1‘er somegrime when she regained conéciousness she sfar'fed crying and called The “(wagers for help and asked 1'0 ca” her fafher-in-law and mo‘l’her-in- iiaw as Komai Frasad Pandey has murdered her husband wifh a sword. Then Varun and Sukhram fold her fhcT her faTher—in-Iaw Raghuvar lhas been murdered a'r 1'he pond and her mofher-in-law Shanfi Bai had aisg been murdered in ffronf of The house of Vijay Sharma. The family of The deceased and the family of accused Komal Prasad i Pandey were in inimical ’rerms. Fif‘reen days prior To The daTe of incidenT, Komal.Prasad Pandey quarreled wiTh her in-laws and Two days prior To This incidenT Komal Prasad Pandey and his broTher Ashok had given ThreaT To kill her family members as Komal Prasad Pandey was suspecTing The? The family members of RaTna Pandey were pracTicing wiTchcrafT and on accounT of ThaT he commiTTed The murder of her husband, fGTher-in-law and moTher-in-law wiTh a sword aT The places wherever They were found. 6. R. Tigga, The SToTion House Officer, Police STaTion, PaTharia recorded Merg InTimaTion No.14 of 1999 (EXP-1) and regisTered The ~l case vide Crime No.26 of i999 for offences under SecTion 302 of The I.P.C. under FIR. EXP-2. ThereafTer, he reached The scene of in occurrence village Badara. (B) and gave noTices To The wiTnesses under EXP-8 & EXP-8A for prepara‘i'ion of The Panchanama of The dead body of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey and in presence of The wiTnesses he prepared The Panchnama, EXP-9, of The dead body. AfTer preparingTl-ie requisiTion EXP-21, The dead body of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey was senT for pasT morTem examinaTion To The Primary . 5) HealTh CenTre, PaTharia aiong wiTh ConsTable Dileep Kumar. AT The ’, \ Time of The preparaTion of The Panchanama of The dead body of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey: The body was goT phoTographed which are ll Exs.P—3A, P—3B & P—3C. On The same day, one whiTe coloured Terry° 4 2 ' (“O ca? i'nne'r‘ garmer‘uf (Barudi), orie whifé caloured 6amcha, one whi‘re coioured Lungi, blood stained soil and plain soil were recovered and seized under EXP-5, which bears ‘rhe signa'rure of fhe Hives‘l'igafing Officer from ‘C' f6 ‘C‘. On 14w June, 1999, on enquiry, accused Komal Pmsad Pandey gave memorandum EXP-18, 1'he pho+ocopy of which is EXP-18C, in which accused Komai Prasad Pandey informed Tha‘i‘ biood sfained sward was concealed in his house. This memorandum was given in 1'he presence of wifnesses Kailash 5harma and Vijendra Sharina, whose signatures are a1' 'C' To 'C’ and 'B' 1'0 ‘B', respecfiveiy. On 'the same day in pursuance of The informa‘rion given by The accused, he Took Them To his house and afTer opening The lock wiTh a key Took cuT- The sword, which was seized under EXP-19, copy of which is EXP-19C. This recovery memo bears The signaTures of wiTnesses Kaiiash <3: Vijendra and accused Komal Prasad Pandey. The sword is ArTicle ‘F‘. 0n The same day one blue coioured T-shirT and one purpie coioured fuii panT of The accused were seized under Ex.P- 20 which bears The signaTures of wiTnesses Kaiiash & Vijendra. Accused Komal Prasad Pandey was arresTed on 15”‘ June, 1999, under arresT Panchanarna EXP-20. The Seized sword was senT for examinaTion by The docTor on 12.07.99 under EXP-7A, a copy of which is Ex.P—23C, To ascerTain as To wheTher The injuries found on The body of Raghuvar Prasad Pandey can be caused by The sword. One sealed packet which was produced by ConsTable Dileep Kumar, was seized under EXP-4. The seized arTicles were senT for chemical examinaTion To The Forensic Science LaboraTory Through The SuperinTendenT of Police, Bilaspur, which was acknowledged by The F.5.L. under EXP-QR The reporT of The F.5.L. is EXP-14. ThereafTer, The cloThes and The sword were senT To The SerologisT for examinaTion and reporT. The reporT of The SerologisT is EXP-15. The she pan of The place of incidenT was goT prepared by The PaTwari, which is EXP-7. \x -r I. Afwr‘ compiefion of The invesfiga‘tion, charge sheef was filed in fhe Cour‘r of the Judicial Magisim‘re, Fir-s? Class, Mungeli, who in +ur'n commiHed fhe case for ‘l’rial ‘I’o ‘l'l‘Ie Cour‘l‘ of fhe Sessigns Judge' l Bilaspur, and from There, fhe AddiTional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, l received The case on Transfer. 3 The learned AddiTionai Sessions Judge afTer perusal of The record reached fhe conclusion ‘lha‘r There were sufficien'l ma‘l'erial To frame ‘l'l'le charges under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code and Sec‘l'ion ~25 of ‘llie Arms Act againsf The accused. Accordingly, he framed The charges againsT The accused for The commission of The offences punishable under SecTion 302 of The Indian Penal Code and SecTion 25 of The Arms AcT. The accused denied The charges and claimed To be Tried. . The prosecuTion in order To prove The charges levelled againsT The accused examined in all ThirTeen wiTnesses aT The Trial. The sTaTemenT of The accused was recorded under SecTion 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied The evidence of The prosecuTion wiTnesses and sTaTed ThaT he was noT presenT in The village on The daTe of The incidenT and he has been falsely implicaTed in The case. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT he was noT suspecTing The‘ family of The deceased persons ThaT They were pracTicing wiTchcrafT ' nor he gave any ThreaT To Them. He also sTaTed ThaT he has noT ; 9 murdered Raghuvar Prasad Pandey, The Sword was noT seized from him, he had noT signed The recovery memos EXP—19 & Ex.P-20, and his cloThes were noT seized. He was arresTed on 13.06.99 and noT on 15.06.99. UlTimaTely, he said ThaT The wiTnesses have deposed againsT him on account of animosiTy, as There was some dispuTe beTween him and Kailash Das (PW-4) on accounT of The repair of The cycle. 10.The learned Addifional Sessions Judge afTer hearing The argumenTs of 5hri Akhil Mishra, AddiTional Public ProsecuTor and Shri Vijayshri /, GupTa, counsel I Tor L The accused and afTer believing The evidence’ / f I / aciduced by fha presiécu'fiori, convic‘red and sen'renced The accused for The commission of the offences under Sec‘rion 302 of The Indian Penai Code and sec‘l‘ion 25 (i-B) (b) read wi'fh Secfion .4“ of fhe Arms AcT as aforesaid‘ ‘11. We have heard Mr. K.A. Ansari, counsel for the accused and Shri Ashok Verma, Depui’y Advoca‘i'e Genemi for fhe Sfafe. 12. As for as fhe nefure of dea‘ih of deceased Rughuvar Prasud Pandey being homicidal in na‘rure is concerned i1- is no1' in dispufe. Dr. Anil ‘ eup'ra (PW-12) in his Evidence has sfafed fhaf on 14/06/1999 he was working as Block Medical Officer in the Primary Heol‘rh Cen‘l’er, ?afharia and on 1"ha1' day on 1"he requisi'fion of Pafharia Police S'rafion he conducted The auTopsy on The dead body of deceased Raghuvar Prasad Pandey. On examinaTion of The dead body he found The following injuries: (i) Incised injury over righT side of abdomen below lower border of liver, peneTraTing in abdominal caviTy. Size 3O cms. x i0 cms. a1" cenTer x 7 cms. siTuaTed 2 cms. away from midline reaching To back of righT side of chesT. Margins of The. wound are clean cuT and regular. Blood cIoT presenT over wound. Liver and inTesTine are found blood sTained. (ii) Incised injury over righT side of chesT siTuaTed from midiine below righT clavicle and exTending To back of righT side of chesT peneTraTing To Thoracic caviTy, cuTTing skin, muscle, ribs and upper love of righ’T lung. Size of injury is 25 cms, x é cms. x 12 cms. Margins of The wound are clean cuT and regular. Blood cioT presenT over wound. (iii) Incised injury size 16 cms. x 4 cms‘ x 2 cms. over righT side of face siTuaTed from righT side of nose and exTends below lobule of righT ear. CuTTinq skin, muscles of face, and righT mandible and bones of righT cheek. Margins of The wound are clean cuT and regular. Blood cloT presenT over wound. g9 (iv) Incised injury over fronT of middle of lefT fore arm size 11 cms. x 7 cms. x 5 cms., cuTTing skin, musoles and blood vessels. Margins of The wound are clean cuT and regular. Blood cloT presenT over wound. W3 I \ w; InciSéd injury over middie of from of leff arm size 8 cms. x 5 ems. x 2.5 cms., cu'Hing skin, muscles and blood vessels: Margins of The wound am dean cuf and regular. Biood clo‘r presenf over The wound. U (vi) Incised injury over medial side of lef‘r knee joint size 8 cms. x 2 ems. x % cm. Margins of ‘i'he wound are clean cu'r and reguiar. Blood ciof presen‘i' over The wound. - 13.The doc‘ror has furiher s‘ra‘red Thu? in his opinion on accoun‘r of excessive bleeding from 'H-Ie injuries No.1 +0 6 +he deceased died. AH 1"ne above injuries were ani'e mom‘em in na'l’ur‘e. The dea‘l’h of deceased Raghuvar Presed Pandey was homicidal in na'rure. PW-4 Kaiiash Das & PW—iO Qamashanker Pandey in +heir evidence have shied Tha‘f ‘rhey saw accused Komal Prasad Pandey assaul‘ring The deceased with a. sword and Raghuvar Prasad Pandey died on The spoT on accoun'l’ of 'i'he sword injuries susTained by him. Therefore, in View of The above medics! and oTher evidence, iT is proved ThaT The deaTh of deceased Raghuvar Prasad Pandey was homicidal in naTure. 14.As far as Tie moTive behind The crime is concerned, PW-1 RaTna Pandey has menTioned in her reporT and sTaTed before The CourT ThaT The famiiy of The accused was suspecTing her faTher-in-Iaw, moTher—inuiaw and Their family To be pracTicing wiTchcrafT againsT The family of The accused and on accounT of ThaT some quarrel Took place fifTeen days back and The parenTs of The accused were noT residing in The village since Then. Moreover, in Para 6 of The evidence, This wiTness has sTaTed ThaT few days prior To The daTe of incident The accused and his broTher Ashok ThreaTened Them ThaT They would Teach a lesson To each and'every one by cuTTing Them. Therefore, The accused was having animosiTy againsT The family of The deceased on accounT of The suspicion ThaT They were pracTicing wiTchcrafT and some quarrel also Took place in This regard. Hence, / This was The moTive for commiTTing The crime. 15iNow coming To The quesTion as} To wheTher The accused/appellanT/ Komal ?rasad Pandey had commiTTed The murder of Raghuvar Prasa $ . / /i ‘ 7 a: g. Pandey by assauifing him wifh a sword, fne prosecufion has examined two eyewitnesses namely, PW—4 Kailash Das & PW-lO Ramashanker Pandey. PW—4 Kailash Das has s‘l'a‘ted in his evidence“ fha‘l' on The morning of 13+“ June, 1999 af abou‘r 8.45 mm. he was brushing his +ee+hi Ramashanker' Pandey who was presen'f fher'e was also brushing his ‘i'ee’rh arid Raghuvar Prasad Pandey was nlso brushing his feefh. Two efher persons nameiy, Parvoo Rcwa? & Radhey Rawaf were also presen'l' fhere. A1” The? Time, accused Komal Prasad Pandey came x ‘fr‘om backside cmd assauITed Raghu'v‘ar Prasad Pandey saying fha‘r Raghuvor .Prasad Pandey had made his life miserable. PW-4 Kailash pas is a priest He lef‘i' The si‘ie wifhoui' “raking baTh. He was so frightened 'ihai' he could no? perform Puja on Tha'r day. He reached his house and Thereaf'l'er, Ramsingh Kurmi came ‘l'o his house and informed him ihaf Shanfi Bai di Ashu‘iosh Pandey were also murdered. The whole day he remained in his house. PW—10 Ramashanker Pandey has also corrobora‘i'ed The evidence of PW—4 Kailash Das. In his evidence, PW—lO has spoken abouT The presence of Kailash Das & Raghuvar Prasad Pandey on The spoT. He has sTaTed ThaT in The morning of 13w June, 199§ he was brushing his TeeTh, Raghuvar Prasad Pandey was 'washing his cloThes and Kailash Das was also brushing his TeeTh. One Mahesh was also washing his cloThes aT some disTanoe. Komal Prasad Pandey came frym The back side, and stepped down un To The plaTform where Raghuvar Prasad Pandey was washing The cloThes and afTer abusing him, he assauITed Raghuvar Prasad Pandey wiTh a sword. PW-lO has furTher sTaTed ThaT liaghuvar Prasad fell down. He asked Komal Prasad Pandey whaT he had gained‘by killing Raghuvar Prasad. Komal Prasad looked aT him and again assaulTed Raghuvar Prasad 7-8 Times wiTh The sword. The whole body of Raghuvar Prasad was cuT and he died on The spoT. ThereafTer, Komal Prasad wenT Towards The village. AfTer seeing The firsT assaulT on Raghuvar Prasad, Kailash Das lefT The siTe buT again 9 /' // came back. On seeing This incidenT, Kailash Das became frighTened/ / 10 and a$kéd Rdmésha'r‘uker‘ Pandey as 1'0 why he was sfanding fhere and asked him 1'0 99 To his house. When Ramashanker- Pandey was going +0 his house he saw Shan‘ri Bai's dead body in fron‘l' OF The house of Vijay Sharma, as his house is adjacen‘r To The house of Vijay Sharma. 16.Learned counsel far ‘rhe accused/appallanf submi‘r'l'ed Thaf There are confmdic’rions in 1"he evidence of PW-4 & PW-10, fhey are no‘r ‘rhe namra! witnesses and They are cremed witnesses. He fur‘rher submiHed' fhaf PW-4 Kailash Das has sfafed fhaf The whole day he Vsremaihed in his house, whereas PW-10 Ramashanker Pandey has sTaTed ThqT afTer same Time of The incident Kaiiash Das came back. ‘IT is True ThaT This conTradicTion is on record. BuT, by poinTing ouT This ccnT. icTian, The learned counsel for The accused has Tried To show ThaT PW-4 & PW-10 are noT The eyewiTnesses and They had noT seen The incident IT is a facT ThaT Kailash Das is a priesT of a Temple, which is siTuaTed near This Ram Sagar Pond iTseif. This facT has noT been denied and being a PuJ’ari of The Temple, iT is buT naTurnI ThaT in The marning he had gone To The pond and Taken baTh. before performing The PuJa. Moreover, he is The residenT of ThaT parTicuIar viiiage and he had no animosiTy againsT The accused. As such his presence aT The pond cannoT be doubTed, merely on accounT of This minor conTmdicTion in The evidence of PW—4 Kailash Dos & PW-lO Ramashanker Pandey. 17,Learned counsel for The accused furTher submiTTed ThaT PW-10 Ramashanker Pandey is closely relaTed To Raghuvar Prasad Pandey and AshuTosh Pande' because The sisTer in law of AshuTosh is married To This wiTness and Thus he is an inTeresTed wiTness. The TesTii‘nohy of a wiin‘ess cannoT be discarded merely on The ground ThaT he is a relaTive of The deceased. As per The seTTled law, a TesTimony of The close relaTives or inTeresTed wiTnesses musT be scruTinized meticulously in order To ascerTain The correcTness of The evidence of ThaT wiTness. The Time of The incidenT is morning and aT T'naT Time iT is buT naTur-ai ThaT villagers remain presenT aT ThawJ/c / e‘ 9 / ll for faking ba‘i’h. In ’Hr‘ue cross-examimfion of fhese Two wifnesses, The defence has no? been eble fo e!ici'r qny'rhing, which makes The U presence of fhese wimesses crr fhe scene of occurrenée doub‘rful. 18.Learned counse, fer 1’he accused furfher' argued The? as per The evidence of fhese fwo wi'rnesses, Mahesh, Parvoo Rawaf & Radhey Rawai' were aiso presen'r ai- ‘rhe scene of occurrence bu‘r ihey have n9? been produced by fhe prosecufion as wifnesses, Therefore, adverse inference musf be drawn agains‘r The prosecufion. We do nof u ‘ uind any force in This argumenf of fhe learned counsei. In order To prove a fae'r it is nof necessary That more number of wi‘i'nesses are Jo be examined. Depending upon The qualify of fhe evidence a facf can be proi'ed even by producing a singie wi‘rness. Moreover, PW-13 R. Tigga, The Inves‘rigafing Officer in his cross examinafion has sfa‘red “Hr-la? he enquired from Mahesh who sfai'ed ‘rha‘r he does no1’ know anything ebouf the incidenf and ofher persons also said Tha‘l' 'i'hey do no? know any‘i'hing. Therefore, fheir sfa‘l'emen‘l's were no‘l' recorded and fhey were no‘i' ci'red as prosecufion wifnesses. Moreover, if has come on record fha‘r accused Komai Prasad Pandey murdered Three persons of a family and on accouni' of Thai" residents of fhe en‘rire viilage were frightened and nobody was coming forwdrd even To heip RaTna Pandey, The wife of deceased AshuTosh Pandey. ‘x They were noT even prepared To keep her wiTh Them. Therefore, in such a. siTuqTion iT was very difficuIT for The prosecuTion To collecT The evidence. PW-4 Kaiias'n Das & PW—lO Ramashanker Pandey are naTura! wiTnesses and noThing has been broughT ouT in Their cross- examinaTion which makes Their presence aT The scene of occurrence doubTfuL If PW-lBs‘s a relaTive of The deceased, as argued by The learned counsel for The accused, Then The accused is also a relaTive of The deceased being son of cousin broTher of deceased Raghuvar Prasad Pandey. The accused and AshuTosh Pandey are cousins. The whole village is inhabiTed mainly by Brahmins, and mosT of Them are relaTed To each oTher. Therefore, on accounT of The relaTion—ships// t / / ///' / / 10 wiles-s and urii’ii s-o‘mé fhir1g else comes on record‘ which makes The evidenc- cf witness doub'rful, their evidence cannof be discarded aniy on 1‘haf ground. U 1.7. Learned counsel appearing for The accused submif‘red Thai in The sife map Ex‘P-27, The I.O‘ has no? shown The place where The éyewiTnesses were present Therefore, The prosecuTion case becomes doubTful. There is no force in This argumenT also. IT is noT rhandaTory ThaT The place where The wiTnesses were presenT musT be indicaTed in The siTe plan and if The same is shown Then The siTe plan dogs noT becomes doubTful. IT is True ThaT if The place where The wiTnesses were sTanding is indicaTed The map becomes more reliable and more rele‘anT in order To scruTinize The evidence of The wiTnesses. BuT merely 'on The basis of This, The evidence of The eyewifnesses cannoT be disbelieved. Learned counsel Tried To poinT ouT one or Two omissions in The evidence of These wiTnesses in The sTaTemenTs recorded under SecTion 161 of The Cr.P.C., buT These omissions are of no significance, as has been discussed above. By cross-examining These wiTnesses, noThing