2 his‘ father-in-law Brijlal (since deceased) since last so many years On 16 11-2001 at about 4 pm at Village Rlko Pollce Station Mandlr’ Hasoud Dlstt Ralpur (CG) the accused/appellant attacked the‘ 7, L deceased who was present In the feld for watching the crop Wife of the deceased Premln Bat (PW 2) went to the Feld for calling her husband‘ where she saw that the appellant was assaulting the deceased With stick . over his head hand leg & other parts of the body and the appellant also , tled the neck of the deceased w1th gamcha (towel) She Immediately rushed to the Village and Informed her brother-In law (devar) Blrjhu Ram (PW-1) who Immediately went to the feld and saw the dead body of hls -, brother Blrjhu Ram lodged merg Intimatlon which was recorded Vlde y, Ex P-15 and on the baSIs of the merg Intimatlon F l Rt was registered > Vlde Ex P 1 The lnvestlgatlng Oft‘cer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the Witnesses Vlde Ex P—2 Inquest over the dead body was prepared Vlde Ex P-3 Spot map was prepared by the lnvestlgatlng Offcer Vlde Ex P 10 Dead body was sent for autopsy Vlde Ex P—16 to the Medical College Hospital Ralpur and autopsy was :conducted by Dr Ulhas Gonnade (PW-11) who notlced eighteen Injuries l _ over different parts of the body Cause of death of the deceased was 3 asphyXIa as a result of throttling Llgature mark was found over the neck of the deceased The appellant was taken Into custody on 17-1 1-2001 ’ he made disclosure statement relatmg to stick Vlde Ex P 4 and the same ‘was recovered at his Instance Vlde Ex P-5 Bloodstamed shirt was recovered from the accused Vlde Ex P-6 Plain sell & bloodstalned s0Il were recovered from the spot Vlde Ex P 7 Patwarl prepared spot map Vlde Ex P 8 Sealed packet containing towel used for tying the neck of the deceased received from the doctor was recovered Vlde Ex P 12 During the course of InCIdent the appellant also sustained Injuries he I I was examined by Dr. K.S. Rai (PW-7) vide EXP-13 who found one _ abrasion of 2" x few m.m. over right side of neck. Seized aniCIes were sent for chemical examination and presence of biood was confirmed over stick, the weapon of offence, and shirt recovered from the accused. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 313 of the‘ Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur, from where the 13‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur received the case on transfer for trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused has also taken the defence that the deceased used to love him more than his children and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, = 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although wife of the deceased Premin Bai (PW—2) is close relative of the deceased, but she is a chance witness and her presence on the spot at the time of commission of the offence was not natural. Her evidence has not been C supported by independent sources‘and it is not safe to rely upon. She has deposed that she has seen the incident only from 10-15 steps away, but she has not tried to intervene and even the appellant has not tried to assault her. This makes her presence unnatural. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Jalam Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in case of contradictory medical & ocular evidence, statement of solitary eyewitness whose presence is doubtful is not safe to rely. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal. 8. ln order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we have examined the evidence available on record. " 9. ln the present case, homicidal death of Brijlal is not disputed by the appellant, otherwise also established by the evidence of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-1 1) and autopsy report EXP-22 in which eighteen injuries were found over the body of Brijlal including the ligature mark on neck and cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling. 10.As regards the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, case of the prosecution wholly rests on the statement of solitary and relative eyewitness Premin Bai (PW-2). Premin Bai (PW—2) has deposed in her evidence that on the fateful day her husband was working in the field, at the time of incident he went to the field for calling her husband to attend a village meeting. the appellant was also present in the field and he was assaulting her husband with stick over his head, hand, leg & other parts of the body. The appellant also tied the neck of her husband with a Gamcha (towel) and her husband died on the spot. The appellant fled away from the spot. She washed the blood on the body of her husband, came back to the village and informed her brother- in-law (devar) Birjhu Ram (PW-1) who also went to the spot, saw the dead body of his brother and lodged the report. Defence has cross- examined Premin Bai (PW-2) in detail, but in her detailed cross— examination she has specifically deposed that the appellant is the person 3 1 2003(4) M.P.H.T. 366 (DB) 2./ t g‘ \ 2/ who has caused injuries to the deceased. She has also admitted that on _ the date of incident the appellant came to her house. 11.Evidence of Premin Bai (PW-2) is unchallenged. Although she is close relative of the deceased and chance witness, but her evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that she is close relative of the deceased. Her evidence requires minute scrutiny. Close relative of the deceased will be reluctant to spare the real culprit and implicate the innocent person falsely. 12.While dealing with the question of evidentiary value of the relative witnesses, the Apex Court in the matter of Dalip Singh and others v. The State of Punjabz has held that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted. Para 26 of the said iudgment reads as under:- “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wishto implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. lt is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge ‘along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for \ such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward incases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each 0 R 1953 SC 364 \& / l case must be Iimited to and be governed by its own facts.” 13.While dealing with the same question, the Ap'ex Court in’the matter of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihara has held thus, u ...... it will be erroneous to Iay down as a rule of universal application that non-examination of a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is othenlvise credit-worthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an “interested" witness. It is trite that the term “interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive.” 14.Detailed evidence of Premin Bai (PW-2) reveals that the appellant is the person yvho has caused eighteen injuries over the body of Brijlal, which are sufficient for causing his death. Evidence of Premin Bai (PW-2) inspires c0nfidence, it is trustworthy and safe to rely. 15.As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence, motive loses its importance, even otherwise, motive is aided in criminality and it can be inferred by the weapon used, partof the body hit, nature of injury 3 t 3 R 7 ll l b k and other circumstances. The evidence of Premin Bai (PW-2) & Dr. ' Ulhas Gonnade (PW-1 1) reveals that eighteen injuries have been found over the body of deceased Brijlal, including Iigature mark over his neck. This shows the grave intention of the accused of causing homicidai death of the deceased amounting to murder. 16.ln the present case, there is no conflict between medical and ocular evidence. Therefore, the case of Jalam Singh (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 17.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially the evidence of Premin Bai (PW—2), we are of the view that conviction & sentence recorded by the trial Court are based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law. 18.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Sd/— r Judge T. P. Sharma Judge r, l l Soma