JUDGMENT V. N. Varma, J. 1. THIS is an appeal from the judgment and order of Sri V. S. Kulshrestha, Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit by which he convicted the appellants-Nathu, Pallu, Jagdeo, Bachu and Moti-under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. Appellants, Nathu, Moti, Bachu and Jagdeo were further convicted under Section 148 IPC and were sentenced to two years' R. I. each. Appellant Pallu was also convicted under Section 147 IPC and he too was sentenced to two years' R.I. 2. The person who lost his life in this case was one Harpal, resident of village Gai Boih, P. S. Gairaula, district Pilibhit. He was a milt-vendor by profession. His wife, Smt. Ram Wati, PW 1 lived with him. Sometime in the year 1970, a theft was committed at his house In that theft Harpal deceased was said to have caught appellant Nathu red handed, Harpal made a report against him in consequence whereof a case was started against Nathu. On 21-8-1972. at about 9 P. M., appellant Nathu along with the other appellants of the case met Harpal at his house and asked him to compromise the theft case. Harpal refused to oblige them. His refusal irked the appellants and they went threatening Harpal. On 22-8-1972, at about 6.30 A. M. Harpal was on his way to Pilibhit proper to sell milk. He had a cycle with him and he was carrying milk in a drum on that cycle. His wife, Smt. Ram Wati, PW 1 and his Sala, Munna Lal, PW 3 were also with him. The son of Harpal was ill and they were taking him to Pilibhit for medical aid. It is said that when these persons had hardly covered about half a mile and were near Khanda river, the appellants variously armed-appellants Nathu, Bachu and Moti armed with spears, appellant Jagdeo armed with a Kanta and appellant Pallu armed with a lathi fell upon Harpal, who was going a little ahead of his wife and Sala, and started' assaulting him with the weapons with which they were armed. Smt. Ram Wati and Munna Lal raised an alarm hearing which Ram Swarup PW 2, who was ploughing his field in the vicinity, rushed to their help. Harpal was badly assaulted and he died on the spot. Smt. Ram Wati and Munna Lal raised an alarm hearing which Ram Swarup PW 2, who was ploughing his field in the vicinity, rushed to their help. Harpal was badly assaulted and he died on the spot. Smt. Ram Wati went to Thana and made a report at 9 A. M. Thana being nine miles from the place of the incident, S. I. D. K. Thapliyal was present at the thana when the report was made. He immediately took charge of the investigation in his hand and recorded the statement of Smt. Ram Wati. He then went to the spot accompanied by some police officials. He first held an inquest on the dead body of Harpal and then inspected the locality and drew the site plan Ex. Ka-9. He also took blood-stained earth as well as plain earth from the place of the incident and sealed them in two different containers. Having done that he sealed the dead body in a coffin box and sent it to Mortuary for post mortem examination. 3. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Harpal was conducted by Dr. B. Naram on 22-8-1972 at 5.15 P. M. He found as many as 18 injuries on the dead body. Those injuries were in the nature of lacerated wounds, incised wounds, stab wounds and contusions. According to Dr. Narain, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries received. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and repudiated the truth of the allegations made against them. They attributed their false implication due to enmity. Appellant Nathu alleged that Ram Swarup PW 2 had chopped off the nose of his Sala for which a case was started against him. He appeared as a witness against him in that case and it was because of this that Ram Swarup got him implicated in this case. Appellant Moti is the brother of Nathu ; according to him he too had been falsely implicated by Ram Swarup. Appellants Jagdeo and Pallu, who were also own brothers, also attributed their implication due to Ram Swarup. According to Jagdeo he had abducted a girl at the asking of Ram Swarup, but when the police came in the picture, he disowned to have played any part in this crime. Appellants Jagdeo and Pallu, who were also own brothers, also attributed their implication due to Ram Swarup. According to Jagdeo he had abducted a girl at the asking of Ram Swarup, but when the police came in the picture, he disowned to have played any part in this crime. Appellant Pallu alleged that as he happened to be the brother of Jagdeo, he too was roped in by Ram Swarup. Appellant Bachu also threw all the blame for his implication in this case on Ram Swarup. He alleged that he had brought a girl from Pipari Nagaria with her consent to his village. This girl turned out to be a relation of Ram Swarup. Ram Swarup, therefore, felt annoyed with him and implicated him in this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case fully established and he, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Aggrieved, they have come up in appeal to this Court. 5. The medical evidence leaves no room for doubt as to the factum of the occurrence and the prosecution case with regard to its time and the weapons used in the assault also receives broad corroboration from it. The place of occurrence (about half a mile from the abadi of village Gai Bojh near Khanda river) is also fixed up by the recovery of blood from there. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the appellants also neither disputed the place of the incident, nor the time when it took place. All that he urged before us was that the appellants had nothing to do with the crime in question and they owed their false implication due to Ram Swarup PW 2. We shall now discuss the evidence and endeavour to judge whether or not the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 6. TO prove its case against the appellants, the prosecution placed reliance on the testimony of Smt. Ram Wati PW 1, Ram Swarup PW 2 and Munna Lal PW 3. We will take up the evidence of Smt. Ram Wati PW 1 and Munna Lal PW 3 together. As stated above, Smt. Ram Wati PW 1 is the widow of the deceased while Munna Lal PW 3 is his Sala. They have given the same details of the incident which we have mentioned above. We will take up the evidence of Smt. Ram Wati PW 1 and Munna Lal PW 3 together. As stated above, Smt. Ram Wati PW 1 is the widow of the deceased while Munna Lal PW 3 is his Sala. They have given the same details of the incident which we have mentioned above. They have stated in clear words that on 22-8-1972, at about 6 30 A. M., they had been going to Pilibhit in the company of Harpal deceased in connection with the medical treatment of Harpal's son, when in the way, near Khanda river the appellants way-laid Harpal, who was a few paces ahead of them, and assaulted him with spears, Kanta and lathi, causing several injuries to him as a result of which he died on the spot. Now the question is why the evidence of these two persons should be disbelieved. On the face of it they appear to us to be very probable witnesses. Harpal used to sell milk at Pilibhit. Every morning he carried milk to that place in a drum. His son was ill. He wanted to show him to some doctor at Pilibhit. There was, therefore, nothing improbable if Smt. Ram Wati and Munna Lal accompanied Harpal taking the ailing child with them to Pilibhit for medical aid. Being in the company of Harpal, they were undoubtedly in a position to see the assault which was mounted on him. It is true that they are very close relations of Harpal, but on that score alone, their evidence cannot be thrown over-board. Mere relationship or interestedness of a witness is not sufficient to discard him, if his presence on the spot cannot be seriously doubted. Close relations would be the last persons to screen the real culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons, and hence the mere fact of relationship, far from being the foundation of criticism of the evidence, is often a sure guarantee of truth. The incident in question had taken place in broad day light. Nothing has been shown as to why Smt. Ram Wati and Munna Lal should have exonerated the real assailants and falsely implicated the appellants, in our opinion, both these persons are "wholly" reliable witnesses and we therefore believe them. Next we come to the evidence of Ram Swarup PW 2. Nothing has been shown as to why Smt. Ram Wati and Munna Lal should have exonerated the real assailants and falsely implicated the appellants, in our opinion, both these persons are "wholly" reliable witnesses and we therefore believe them. Next we come to the evidence of Ram Swarup PW 2. He has stated on oath that on the morning of 22-8-1972 he had been ploughing his filed when he heard Smt. Ram Wati PW 1 and Munna Lal PW 3 shouting. He left his field and rushed forward to see as to what the matter was. He saw all the five appellants assaulting Harpal with spears, Kanta and Lathi. Harpal received a large number of injuries and died then and there. This witness also, to our mind, is quite a good and dependable witness and his evidence goes a long way to support the prosecution case. Admittedly, his field is quite close to the place of the incident. In the morning villagers generally plough their fields and there was therefore, nothing improbable if this witness also was ploughing his field when he saw the incident. He is not to be disbelieved simply because the appellants want him to be disbelieved. When a witness gives evidence on oath, the presumption should be that he has spoken the truth-that is the oath he takes and the burden must lie on him that challenges the veracity of that statement to show that it is not true. And if that burden is not discharged by any of the recognised legal methods then a court can have no legal justification for not relying .on the evidence of that witness. In this case the appellants have tried to show that this witness Ram Swarup bore enmity towards them and it was because of that enmity that they were falsely implicated. Ram Swarup denied that he bore any kind of enmity towards the appellants, in the face of this denial it was absolutely necessary on the part of the appellants to lead some convincing evidence to show that Ram Swarup was an inimical witness. They, however, failed to show this thing. Therefore, as it is, we have no doubt in our mind that Ram Swarup is definitely a good witness and it would not be proper to ignore his evidence on fanciful grounds. They, however, failed to show this thing. Therefore, as it is, we have no doubt in our mind that Ram Swarup is definitely a good witness and it would not be proper to ignore his evidence on fanciful grounds. Ram Swarup has given a very consistent, and, for all practical purposes, a blotless story of the incident. On the strength of his evidence also we are fully satisfied that it were the appellants who had assaulted Harpal and had caused his death. 7. THUS, from a perusal of what we have mentioned above it is clear that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Harpal was assaulted at a time when the persons seeing the incident possibly could not have failed to identify his assailants. All the witnesses examined in this case are definite that it were the appellants who had murdered Harpal. The appellants were, therefore, rightly convicted under Sections 302/149; 147 and 148 IPC. 8. IN the result, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly. The appellants are on ball, their bail bonds are cancelled and they should be taken in custody to serve out their sentences. Appeal dismissed.