Short Note : This is an appeal against the judgment dated 9-3-1976, passed in Sessions Trial No.3 of 1976 by the Session Judge, Guna, in which he has convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Held : Only because the witnesses are near relations, their evidence cannot be rejected. The only caution we have to observe is that we will have to scruitnize their evidence very strictly. The learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to show us any infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses. The only thing he could say regarding witness No.2, namely, Ramcharan, is that he was running from this place to that and he should have informed the deceased that the accused wanted to do away with him and this conduct of the witness in not informing the deceased of the intention of the appellant is unnatural. We do not subscribe to this view of the learned counsel. After going through the evidence of Shyamlal (P.W. 1) Ramcharan (P.W. 2), and Chunnilal (P.W. 3), we feel that whatever they have stated is true and they did see the accused firing a shot at the deceased and that the gun was snatched from the appellant and while the gun was being snatched, the appellant received injury on his body. This is the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge after discussing in detail the evidence of these three witnesses. We agree with this finding. 2. The second submission is regarding the path of the bullet after striking the neck. From the evidence of Dr. V.K. Saxena (P.W.10), it is clear that the bullet and pellets were found in the body itself he has said that there was tattooing mark round the wound. According to Medical jurisprudence by Taylor, if tattooing marks are found round the injury, then the shot must have been fired from a very near distance. There is an evidence also that the gun shot was fired from a distance of about six to seven feet. Therefore, the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the path of the bullet shows that such an injury cannot be caused, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the second submission made by the learned counsel is rejected. 3. There is an evidence also that the gun shot was fired from a distance of about six to seven feet. Therefore, the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the path of the bullet shows that such an injury cannot be caused, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the second submission made by the learned counsel is rejected. 3. The third submission is regarding the injuries on the body of the accused. The trial Court has held that in snatching the gun, the appellant might having received the injuries. In the opinion of the Doctor these injuries are simple, i.e., bruises. We also hold that what is stated by the learned Judge is correct. 4. As we have mentioned above, the learned counsel feebly argued that it is a case of an accident and this accident occurred after all of them had a drink. The Doctor, in his statement, has stated that there was no foul breath when he examined the accused. The other witnesses have also denied this suggestion. From the spot also, there is no recovery of any material to show that they had a drinking party. Therefore, the suggestion made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted regarding drinking party. 5. The suggestion of an accident also cannot be accepted, because the gun was in the house of the accused and the accused was present there. In evidence it has come to notice that Shyamlal (P.W.1) and Chunnilal (P.W.3) never used to visit the house of the appellant. As such, it will be very difficult to hold that Shyamlal (P.W.1) or Chunnilal (P.W.3) entered the house, took the gun out, loaded it and then there was an accident. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect and has come to the conclusion that there was no accident and there was no drinking party. We also hold the same. Appeal dismissed.