Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:36186-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 363 of 2024 Abhay Sharma S/o Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Aged About 20 Years R/o Ramayan Nagar, Near Mataji Temple, Ps. Purani Basti District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Purani Basti, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh CRA No. 1605 of 2024 --- Respondent Yashwant Jaiswal @ Bablu S/o Toman Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Malsai Talab, Shitala Colony, Kushalpur, District Raipur, C.G. Versus ---Appellant State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur District- Raipur, C.G. CRA No. 1203 of 2024 --- Respondent Sumit Ghosh S/o Late Shri Shankar Ghosh Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Malsay Talab Janki Chouck, Kushalpur, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.), P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent 2 CRA No. 151 of 202 4 Prateek Soni S/o Shri Santosh Soni Aged About 20 Years R/o Thetwarpara Near J.K. Dani School, Police Station Purani Basti, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (CRA 363/2024) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Appellant (CRA 151/2024) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Appellant (CRA 1203/2024) : Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate For Appellant (CRA 1605/2024) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate : Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25 .0 7 .202 5 1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 325/2021, by which the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the 3 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for three months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the incident date 25.05.2021, complainant Ajay Sahu appeared at the Police Station Purani Basti and lodged a report that he lives with his family in Kushalpur Raipur near Piyush Nagar Malasai pond and drives an auto. His brother Chetan Sahu also drives an auto. On the same date at about 11 am, Suraj Patel called him and told him that some people were beating his brother Chetan Sahu near Malasai pond. He immediately reached Malasai pond, near Shiv temple and saw that the accused Pratik, Sumit Ghosh, Bablu alias Yashwant Jaiswal and Abhay Sharma together were beating his brother Chetan Sahu with hands, fists and knife and were threatening to kill him. His brother Chetan Sahu fell there with bleeding. He and Abhay Sen put him in an auto and took him to Mekahara. According to the complainant, his brother Chetan Sahu told him that the accused had made a murderous attack on him due to an old rivalry. His brother Chetan Sahu died during treatment at Mekara. His brother was stabbed multiple times on both his thighs and genitals. The incident was witnessed by Yuvraj Baghel, Abhay Sen, Suraj Patel and Yogesh Singh Thakur. On the information of the complainant, Merg No. 20/2021 was registered vide Ex.P-18. 4. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence and after 4 summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-16, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-17. Application for conducting post-morterm over the dead body of the deceased Chetan Sahu was given vide Ex.P-21, thereafter Dr. Vartika Singh (PW-12) conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-22 and found following injuries:- 1. Stab wound present transversely over anterior aspect of right thigh 29cm below anterior iliac superior spine of size 3cm x 1cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle blunt and lower angle is acute Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles →artery and veins. 2. Stab wound present transversely over anterior aspect of right thigh 10cm below external injury no 01 of size 3.5cm x 0.5cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle blunt and lower angle is acute Direction of stab wound is upward,posterior and medial. Skin→subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ through and through extending to postero-medial aspect of size 3cm x 1cm. 3. Stab wound present transversely over medial aspect of right thigh 21cm below anterior iliac superior spine and just below testis of size 3cm x 1.5cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle blunt and lower angle is acute. Direction of stab wound is upward, lateral and posterior. Skin→subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ femoral artery and vein. 4. Stab wound present transversely over lateral aspect of left thigh 23cm below anterior iliac superior spine of size 5 3.5cm x 1.5cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ artery and vein. 5. Two stab wound intermixed with each other present transversely oblique over anterior aspect of left gh 23cm below anterior iliac superior spine of size 3cm x 2cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ artery and vein. 6. Stab wound present obliquely over lateral aspect of left thigh 9cm below external injury no 05 of size 7.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles. 7. Stab wound present obliquely over lateral aspect of left thigh 2cm below external injury no 06 of size 2.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles. 8. Stab wound present obliquely over lateral aspect of left thigh 3.5cm below external injury no 07 of size 2.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. Skin→subcutaneous tissue→ muscles. 9. Stab wound present obliquely over lateral aspect of left thigh 3cm below external injury no 08 of size 2.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and posterior. 6 10. Stab wound present transversely over posterior aspect of left thigh 11cm below greater trochanter of size 3cm x 2cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and anterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ artery and vein 11. Stab wound present transversely over posterior aspect of left thigh 3cm below external injury no 10 size 3cm x 1cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and anterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ artery and vein 12. Stab wound present transversely over medial aspect of left thigh 36cm below anterior iliac superior supine of size 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and anterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles. 13. Stab wound present transversely over posterior aspect of right thigh 21cm below sacrum of size 3cm x 2cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and anterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ artery and vein 14. Stab wound present transversely over posterior aspect of left thigh Ham below greater trochanter of size 3cm x 2cm x vessel deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward, medial and anterior. Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles→ artery and vein 15. Stab wound present obliquely over perineum of right side of size 2cm x 1cm x muscle deep both margins clear cut, with upper angle acute and lower angle is blunt. Direction of stab wound is upward. lateral and posterior. 7 Skin→ subcutaneous tissue→ muscles. 16. Incised wound present vertically over testis of right side of size 3cm x 1cm x skin deep. 17. Incised wound present vertically over testis of right 1cm below external injury no 16 side of size 3cm x 1cm x skin deep. 18. Tentative cuts present over ventral aspect of forearm of both side. The doctor opined that cause of death was “Shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab injury over body of deceased” and manner of death was homicidal in nature. 5.
Facts
On the basis of Merg Intimation (Ex.P-18), FIR was registered against the accused/appellants under Section 302, 34 IPC under Crime No. 115/2021 and during investigation, a site map of the incident was prepared as per the information given by the applicant Ajay Sahu vide Ex.P-20. Blood stained and plain soil was seized from the incident site and seizure sheet was prepared vide Ex.P-1. 6. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Pratik Soni and at his pointing out, a sharp steel knife was seized vide Ex.P-2 and on the basis of memorandum of accused Yashwant Jaiswal and at his pointing out, a steel buttoned knife was seized vide Ex.P-10. The clothes worn by accused Yashwant Jaiswal at the time of the incident, a black-brown lower and a black T-shirt, a sky blue jeans and a maroon T-shirt of accused Sumit Ghosh and a grey jeans and blue full T-shirt of accused Abhay Sharma were seized vide Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 respectively. Statements of 8 the witnesses were recorded as per their statements. After giving information to the family members of the accused vide Ex.P-30 to P-32, they were arrested and arrest sheets were prepared vide Exs. P-5 & P-13 to P-15. 7. A request letter (Ex.P-33) was issued to the Tehsildar for preparing the Patwari map of the incident site. A memo (Ex.P-27) was written to Dr.Vartika Singh, Forensic Medicine Department, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Hospital College, Raipur, regarding the query report of the seized property knives and clothes and query report was obtained vide Ex.P-28. The seized materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical testing vide Ex.P-25 and receipt of the same was obtained vide Ex.P-29 and FSL report was received Ex.P-34. After completing all the formalities related to the investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raipur and ultimately, the case was transferred to the Court of 12 th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur proper disposal. 8. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302 or 302 read with Section 34 and Section 4 read with Section 25 (1- B) (B) and Section 5 (1) (A) read with Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and were read out to them, but they denied the charges and claimed trial. 9 9. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents in support of its case. When the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC, they said that they are innocent and that they were falsely implicated due to enmity and that they would not produce any defence evidence. 10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforementioned, against which these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. have been preferred. 11.
Legal Reasoning
witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “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 wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.” 15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry): (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be 15 ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 20. Though eyewitness Ajay Sahu (PW-5), who is the complainant and has been examined in the present case is closely related to the deceased, but his testimony is consistent with respect to the accused being the assailant who inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitness is family member, his testimony cannot be discarded solely on that ground. 21. Abhay Sen (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution, but other evidence available on record proves his presence at the place of incident at the time of the incident. According to the case of the prosecution, Abhay Sen informed Suraj Patel about the incident over the phone and Suraj Patel informed the deceased's brother Ajay Sahu over the phone. Suraj Patel (PW-2) says that he saw the incident from 10-15 meters away. According to him, the accused Yashwant Jaiswal and Abhay were stabbing the deceased with a knife at several places on the lower part of his waist. He also said that Ajay Sahu (PW-5) was also present there. According to Ajay Sahu (PW-5), 16 accused Pratik Soni and Yashwant Jaiswal were stabbing the deceased with a knife and accused Abhay Sharma and Sumit Ghosh were holding the hands of the deceased. During cross- examination, witness Suraj Patel (PW-2) was suggested that he was not at the scene of the incident at the time of the incident, which he accepted and said that he was standing at a distance. His statement regarding his presence at the scene of the incident at the time of the incident remained unbroken even in his cross- examination. 22. According to complainant Ajay Sahu (PW-5) on receiving a call from Suraj Patel, he went to the scene of the incident and saw that accused Prateek Soni and Yashwant Jaiswal were attacking his brother Chetan Sahu with a knife and accused Abhay and Sumit were holding the hands of the deceased. The evidence of Ajay Sahu proves that all the four accused were present at the scene of the incident at the time of the incident. According to the complainant Ajay Sahu (PW-5), when he called out to the accused, they fled leaving Chetan Sahu bleeding. He was taking his brother to Mekehara Hospital when on the way his brother (deceased) told him that the accused were attacking him due to old enmity. They attacked him with a knife and threatened to kill him. 23. The complainant Ajay Sahu (PW-5) has stated in his cross- examination that at the time of the inquest, first information report and police statement, he had stated that Suraj Patel had called 17 him and told him that some boys were fighting with his brother near the Shiv temple, then he ran to them. The above has also been mentioned in the Merg Intimation Ex.P-18, First Information Report Ex.P-19 and police statement Ex.D-1 attached to the case. Ajay Sahu (PW-2) has also stated in his police statement that while taking the deceased to the hospital, he told that the accused had beaten him due to old enmity. Thus, no reason has been shown to disbelieve the complainant’s statement. 24. Suraj Patel (PW-2) has denied the suggestion of the defece that the accused Pratik Soni and Sumit Ghosh were also beating the deceased Chetan Sahu at the scene of the incident. He says that Pratik Soni and Sumit Ghosh were not present at the scene of the incident. Yuvraj Singh Baghel (PW-7) has stated that when he went to Chetan Sahu in the hospital and asked him about the incident, he said that the accused Yashwant Jaiswal had beaten him. Ajay Sahu (PW-5) said that accused Pratik Soni and Yashwant Jaiswal had stabbed the deceased with a knife and the accused Abhay and Sumit had held the hands of the deceased. Suraj Patel (PW-2) said that on the second day of the incident he went to the Purani Basti police station on being called. During the proceedings Yashwant Jaiswal and Abhay Sharma were both present in the police station, from whom clothes and buttoned knife were seized. He said that a lower and T-shirt were seized from accused Yashwant and T-shirt and blue jeans were seized from Abhay Sharma. He has said that his signature is on parts A 18 to A of the seizure memo Exs.P-7 and 10. The second witness of the seizure Yogesh Singh Thakur (PW-3) has said that his signature is on parts B to B of the said seizure memo, but has denied any seizure in his presence. 25. According to the Investigating Officer Shri Rajesh Singh (PW-13), he had seized the knife, lower and T-shirt from the possession of accused Yashwant Jaiswal, which has been confirmed by Suraj Patel (PW-2). The investigating officer has said to send the said seized knife and lower T-shirt for chemical test and to attach the report in the case on receipt of the report, which is Ex.P-34. On perusing the said chemical test report, it is seen that the knife seized from accused Yashwant Jaiswal, Article-H and his lower, Article-L, have been found to contain human blood of "B" group. On seeking clarification from the accused in this regard, he said that it is wrong. 26. According to the chemical test report Ex.P-34, the deceased's gauze piece (Article-C), nail (Article-D) and hair (Article-F) have been found to contain "B" group human blood. Thus, the above- mentioned items of the deceased and the knife and lower seized from accused Yashwant have been found to contain "B" group human blood. T-shirt Article-M seized from accused Yashwant Jaiswal and deceased's shirt R-1, jeans R-2, underwear R-3 and belt R-4 have also been found to contain human blood. In such a situation, the use of the knife seized from accused Yashwant Jaiswal in causing the death of the deceased and the presence of 19 human blood on his clothes proves his involvement in committing the crime. 27. Blood has also been found on the jeans (Article-N) and T-shirt (Article-O) seized from accused Abhay Sharma. In this regard, during the examination conducted under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the above facts and said that they were falsely implicated due to enmity, but did not give any reason for being falsely implicated in the case. On observing the information of untimely and accidental death (Ex.P-18) and the First Information Report (Ex.P-19), it is seen that the complainant Ajay Sahu (PW- 5) had lodged a named report against the accused within about two hours of the incident. The evidence of the complainant regarding being an eyewitness of the incident remained unrebutted during cross-examination. 28. There is other evidence on record regarding the presence of Abhay Sen (PW-1) at the scene of the incident. It is true that he has not supported the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, but the presence of Suraj Patel (PW-2) and complainant Ajay Sahu (PW-5) at the scene of the incident cannot be disbelieved. It is true that Suraj Patel (PW-2) has stated that Pratik Soni and Sumit Ghosh were not present at the scene, but the complainant Ajay Sahu (PW-5) has said that Pratik Soni and Yashwant had stabbed Chetan Sahu with a knife and Abhay and Sumit had held the deceased's hand. The Merg Intimation (Ex.P- 18) and the First Information Report (Ex.P-19) also mention that 20 the four accused had committed the crime. Thus, Suraj Patel's statement regarding the accused Pratik Soni and Sumit Ghosh not being present at the scene is not reliable. 29. Section 34 the IPC reads as under:- “34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 30. From perusal of Section 34 of the IPC, it appears that when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by him alone. Therefore, where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34 IPC come into play. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime. 31. The intendment of Section 34 IPC is to remove the difficulties in distinguishing the acts of individual members of a party, acting in furtherance of a common intention. There has to be a simultaneous conscious mind of the persons participating in the criminal action of bringing about a particular result. A common intention qua its existence is a question of fact and also requires an act “in furtherance of the said intention”. One need not search 21 for a concrete evidence, as it is for the court to come to a conclusion on a cumulative assessment. It is only a rule of evidence and thus does not create any substantive offense. 32. The word “furtherance” indicates the existence of aid or assistance in producing an effect in future. Thus, it has to be construed as an advancement or promotion. Here may be cases where all acts, in general, would not come under the purview of Section 34 IPC, but only those done in furtherance of the common intention having adequate connectivity. When we speak of intention it has to be one of criminality with adequacy of knowledge of any existing fact necessary for the proposed offense. Such an intention is meant to assist, encourage, promote and facilitate the commission of a crime with the requisite knowledge as aforesaid. 33. The existence of common intention is obviously the duty of the prosecution to prove. However, a court has to analyse and assess the evidence before implicating a person under Section 34 IPC. A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance. Further, the fact that all accused charged with an offence read with Section 34 IPC are present at the commission of the crime, without dissuading themselves or others might well be a relevant circumstance, provided a prior common intention is duly proved. Once again, this is an aspect which is required to be looked into by the court on the evidence placed before it. It may not be required on the 22 part of the defence to specifically raise such a plea in a case where adequate evidence is available before the Court. 34. Suraj Patel (PW-2) has denied the seizure of the knife from the possession of accused Pratik Soni. He stated that when the police called him, he had told them that Pratik was not present at the scene of the incident. Though according to the chemical test report (Ex.P-34) presented in the case, no blood has been found on the knife seized from accused Pratik, Article-I, but it is proved in the case that at the time of the incident, all the four accused were together and they had a hand in causing the death of the deceased. They have played their respective roles. Therefore, on the basis of the absence of blood stains on the knife seized from accused Pratik, the prosecution case is not adversely affected. As per the above, it is proved that on the incident date 25.05.2021, the four accused assaulted the deceased Chetan Sahu and caused injuries to him. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in proving that on the date and time of the incident, the accused, with the intention of killing the deceased Chetan Sahu, caused his death by inflicting fatal injuries with a knife on both his thighs and near the waist. 35. Considering the statements of the aforementioned eyewitnesses, seizure witnesses, independent witnesses and evidence of Dr.Vartika Singh (PW-12), postmorterm report (Ex.P-22), FSL report (Ex.P-34), further considering the material available on record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial 23 Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforementioned. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 36. For the foregoing reasons, all the above-captioned criminal appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 37. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 38. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 39. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail term, to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. They further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are material contradiction and omission in the evidence of the eye-witness, namely, Abhay Sen (PW-1), Suraj Patel (PW-2), Yogesh Singh Thakur (PW-3) and Yuvraj Baghel (PW-7) and further that they all have turned hostile, as such, the same cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellants. They further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to see the evidence of eye-witness Suraj Patel (PW-2), who informed Ajay Sahu (PW-5), the brother of deceased, has specifically stated in paragraph 18 of his cross- examination that when he reached the place of incident, nobody 10 was present there. It has been submitted that as per the FSL report, no blood was found on the knives allegedly seized in the crime. They also submitted that the learned trial Court relied upon the evidence of Ajay Sahu (PW-5), brother of the deceased, who is close relative and interested witness, his evidence is not safe to rely solely for conviction of the appellants and the evidence of eye-witnesses do not corroborate with each other, and as such, all the appeals deserve to be allowed. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submitted that complainant Ajay Sahu (PW-5) has clearly stated in his statement that when he reached at the place of incident, accused Pratik Soni and Yashwant Jaiswal were assaulting his brother Chetan Sahu with knives and accused Ajay and Sumit were holding the hands of deceased Chetan Sahu. Although he is close relative of the deceased person, but he would be the most material witness in the case. The appellants have been named in the Merg Intimation Ex.-P-18 as well as in FIR Ex.P-19. He further submitted that weapon of assault i.e. knives have been seized from accused Pratik Soni and Yashwant Jaiswal and clothes of the appellants have also been seized in which human blood was found in FSL examination and further that the death of deceased was proved by Dr. Vartika Singh (PW- 12) that it was homicidal in nature. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by way of oral and documentary evidence. He further submits that looking to the 11 seriousness of crime, the appellants are not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Chetan Sahu was homicidal in nature ? 15. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Vartika Singh (PW-12), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Chetan Sahu and given his report vide Ex.P-22, wherein he has given the opinion that cause of death of the deceased was “Shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries over body of deceased” and manner of death was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 16. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are the author of crime ? 17. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those 12 who are close relatives of the deceased, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the deceased. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. 18. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 1453, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. 19. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of a “related witness” cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. On the contrary, why a “related witness” would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person? There is a difference 13 between “related witness” and “interested witness”. “Interested witness” is a witness who is vitally interested in conviction of a person due to previous enmity. The “Interested witness” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 as under : “13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well- settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N., in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki: (Ganapathi case, SCC p. 555, para 14) “14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”.” 14 14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested