On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the statement of Dharmu was recorded on 25-6-1970 ; statement of Rajnibai was recorded on 26-06-1970; statement of Shivbegas was recorded on 4-7-1970. Thus the statements were delayed which throws doubt on the reliability of the prosecution evidence. This Court does not agree with this. The incident took place on 25-6-1970. On the same day there was a report (Ex. P-33) regarding the murder of Bhaklu and Ledwa. Investigating Officer, therefore, had to investigate the murder of three persons. The Investigating Officer had also to effect seizures, and to prepare memos, to effect inquest and to send the dead bodies for post-mortem examinations. All this must have taken time and therefore, the delay in recording the statements under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by few days will not make the evidence of the prosecution witnesses unreliable. Rajaram v. State of M.P., 1970 JLJ SN 23, Banbir and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1409, relied on.

2. It was contended that the main prosecution witnesses are close relations of the deceased like Rajrani (P.W.8) wife, Dharmu (P.W.7) son and Shivbegas (P.W.5) father and therefore they were falsely implicating them. It may be mentioned that mere relationship or enemity is no ground to reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All that is required is that the evidence should be scrutinized with caution and corroboration. It would be pertinent to mention that close relatives of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to shield the real assailants and to falsely mention the name of another person. Baratt v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 839, State of U.P. v. Soman Das, AIR 1972 SC 677, Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab, 1968 (2) SCJ 716, relied on.

3. This is a case of unlawful assembly in which there are number of culprits. In such a situation the prosecution witnesses could omit certain facts because of lapse memory or make some contradictions; but mere contradictions or omissions will not render their evidence unreliable unless these omissions and contradictions are on material aspects of the prosecution case and throw doubt on the main prosecution version. Masalti and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 202, Sohrab and another v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2020, Rai Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 2505, Abdul Gani and others v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 31, relied on.

4. This Court is aware of the fact that this is an appeal challenging the order of acquittal. It has been laid down that the High Court has to give proper weight and consideration to such matters as :-

(1) The views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness,

(2) The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he had been acquitted at his trial,

(3) The right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and

(4) The slowless of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

5. Sitaram Durga Pershad v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 77, Dappili Vema Reddy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 153, Lekha Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 2241, Bishan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 2443, Mohandas Lalwani v. The State of M.P., AIR 1973 SC 2679 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.