JUDGMENT S. N. Jha & I. P. Singh, JJ. - The sole appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.7.1983 at about 2.30 p.m. the informant Mahajan Pandit (P.W. 1) was sitting at his Darwaza. He heard the sound of DHAMDHAM coming from the house of the deceased, Jaya Devi, widow of late Ram Prasad Pandit, which was adjacent east to the Darwaza of the informant. On hearing the sound, the informant went to the door of the deceased and saw the deceased drenched with blood and she was writhing in pain on the ground. There was profuse blood on the ground and at that time, the appellant was coming out from the house of the deceased, Jaya Devi with blood stained spade in his hand. The informant asked the accused as to why he had committed such a serious crime on which be replied as to what he (informant) had to do with that and he (informant) might go wherever he liked. The informant raised alarm saying that the murder had been committed and on that alarm the people of the neighbourhood, namely, Harihar Pandit (P.W. 2). Lallu Sah (not examined), Uchit Pandit (P. W. 3), Saryug Mandal (P.W.4) and many others came there and saw the occurrence. The further case of the prosecution is that on seeing the people arriving at the place of occurrence, the appellant having a blood stained spade in his hand entered his house and bolted the door from inside the room. The villagers got the door of the room opened and caught bold of the appellant along with blood stained spade and he was handed over to the Chaukidar, Sita Ram Paswan who bad also reached at the place of occurrence. Thereafter he was brought to the Police Station by the aforesaid persons and First Information Report was lodged by Mahajan Pandit (P. W. 1). 3. On the basis of the First Information Report a criminal case was registered against the appellant and the police after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet, cognizance of which was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhuhani and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. 4. 3. On the basis of the First Information Report a criminal case was registered against the appellant and the police after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet, cognizance of which was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhuhani and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and according to him, he had been falsely implicated at the instance of the informant (P. W. 1) on account of land dispute. According to him, he had purchased some land from the husband of the deceased, Jaya Devi which was not liked by the informant because the informant also wanted to purchase the same but he did not succeed and, therefore, on account of that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against the accused, has examined as many as 7 witnesses, out of them P.W. 1, is the informant himself. P. Ws. 2 and 4 are said to be the eye witnesses. P. W. 3 and P. W. 5 have been tendered. P. W. 6 is the Doctor, who held postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim lady and P. W. 7 is the Investigating Officer himself. 6. The defence has also examined three witnesses out of them, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 have proved the document as well as the execution of the registered sale deed. 7. The trial court on consideration of the evidence available on the record found and held that the prosecution has established the charge of murder against the appellant and, as such, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 8. Mr. D. N. Yadav appearing on behalf of the appellant bas submitted that there is no direct evidence of assault against the appellant and he bas been convicted only on circumstantial evidence, which mayor may not be true, therefore, benefit of doubt be given to the appellant. It was further contended that all the witnesses are interested witnesses because they are related to each other. He has also drawn our attention to the statement made by the appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where it has been stated by the appellant that he has been falsely implicated due to land dispute. 8A. It was further contended that all the witnesses are interested witnesses because they are related to each other. He has also drawn our attention to the statement made by the appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where it has been stated by the appellant that he has been falsely implicated due to land dispute. 8A. In order to substantiate his contentions the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the evidence of P. Ws. 9. According to the First Information Report, the prosecution case is that while the informant was sitting at his Darwaza he heard some sound coming out from the house of the deceased and on that sound he reached at the Darwaza of the deceased, Jaya Devi and found her writhing in pain on the ground in pool of blood. The informant also found copious blood on the ground. He also saw the appellant coming out from the room of the deceased along with blood stained KUDAL. On his query the appellant replied as to what he had to do with this crime and he might go where he liked. It has been stated in the first information report that he raised alarm and on his Hulla Harihar Pandit (P. W. 2), Lallu Sah (not examined), Uchit Pandit (P.W. 3), Saryug Mandal (P.W.4) along with other several persons came there and saw the occurrence. It is further said in the First Information Report that on seeing the people coming at the place of occurrence the appellant entered into in his house and bolted the door. The villagers went to his house and after opening the door apprehended the appellant with the Kudal and handed him over to the Chaukidar of the village, Sita Ram laswan. Motive has also been assigned in the First Information Report that the appellant has got some quarrel with his wife and he had suspected that the deceased Jaya Devi had instigated his wife, and on account of this, he has committed this heinous crime in broad day light. 10. P. W. 1 in his examination before the Court has supported his statement made in the First Information Report. In his deposition in the court he has stated that when he reached in the courtyard of the deceased, Jaya Devi, he saw her lying on the ground in the room and the blood was oozing out from her body. 10. P. W. 1 in his examination before the Court has supported his statement made in the First Information Report. In his deposition in the court he has stated that when he reached in the courtyard of the deceased, Jaya Devi, he saw her lying on the ground in the room and the blood was oozing out from her body. He has further stated that he saw the appellant in that room who was armed with KUDAL on which blood was also there. He has further stated that when people assembled at the place of occurrence the appellant came out of the room and entered in his house and bolted the room. Many people assembled there and thereafter the appellant was brought out from the room along with the blood stained KUDAL in his hand and he was handed over to Chaukidar, Sita Ram, who had also reached at the place of occurrence. Thereafter he had gone to the police station with other persons and narrated about the occurrence to the officer-in-charge who recorded the first information report. In his cross-examination he has also stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police came in the village on the same day at about 4.30 p.m. and he was examined by the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that he also accompanied the appellant to the police station. In paragraph 34 of his cross-examination he has said that the KUDAL was in the hand of appellant and he saw him coming out from the room of Jaya Devi, the victim lady. He has also stated that when he reached at the house of Jaya Devi; Sukhar Mandal (P. W. 5) was also there. 11. P. W. 2 Harihar Pandit has also stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence on hulla he saw the appellant coming out of the room of Jaya Devi with a KUDAL in his hand. He has further said that he also saw injury on the neck of the deceased. The deceased was besmeared with blood and she was dead. In his cross-examination he has said that he has given his statement for the first time in the court and he has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination he has said that there was some dispute between the appellant and the informant in respect of some land. In his cross-examination he has said that he has given his statement for the first time in the court and he has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination he has said that there was some dispute between the appellant and the informant in respect of some land. This witness also saw the blood in the room of Jaya Devi the victim lady. 12. P. W. 3 has been tendered. 13. P. W. 4 Saryug Mandal has also stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence on hulla he saw the appellant running away from the courtyard of Jaya Devi and he was armed with a blood stained Kudal. He has further stated that he saw injury on the neck, hand and shoulder of the deceased. There is nothing in his deposition which contradicts the prosecution case. He has further stated that many persons assembled at the house of the victim lady after hearing hulla including one Gulchain Pandit who has not been examined by the prosecution. He has stated in his deposition that the appellant and the informant live in the same courtyard and earlier there was no quarrel between the appellant and the informant, Mahajan Pandit (P. W. 1). He has also stated that he has not been examined earlier in this case. 14. P. W. 5 is a tendered witness. 15. P. W. 6 is the doctor who held post mortem examination on the dead body of Jaya Devi on 27.7.83. The doctor found the following injuries:- (i) Incised wound 4" X 2" up to vertical column deep over the left side of the neck with severing of soft tissues, blood vessels and nerve. (ii) Incised wound 1½" X ½" X ½" on right shoulder. (iii) Incised wound 2" X ½" bone deep with fracture of radius and ulna bone (cut fracture over the right wrist joint). (iv) Incised wound 1½" X ½" X ¼" on right palm. (v) Incised wound ½" X 1/8" X 1/8" on right thumb. In the opinion of the doctor injury no. 1 itself was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries noted above caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to the doctor, injury no. In the opinion of the doctor injury no. 1 itself was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries noted above caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to the doctor, injury no. (ii) has been caused on the chest which is vital part of the body as right shoulder is also the part of the chest. In his cross examination be has stated that injury no. (i) could be possible by a weapon which had a sharp edge not less than 5" in length. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. 16. P. W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. He has recorded the First Information Report (Ext. 2) lodged by the informant (P. W. 1) at the Police Station and after recording the statement he started for investigation. He visited the place of occurrence, held inquest report over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 4) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination after preparing command certificate. According to this witness, the place of occurrence is the courtyard of the deceased. He also collected blood stained earth from the room of the deceased and seized a blood stained looking glass, blood stained spade and sent the same for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and prepared the seizure list Ext. 5. He has stated that the appellant was produced before him by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and the Chaukidar Sita Ram Paswan (not examined). The Investigating Officer has also stated that he found copious blood on the ground. He examined certain witnesses in course of investigation. In his cross-examination he has said that he did not remember as to who presented the blood stained KUDAL to him during the course of investigation because it is not mentioned in the case diary. He has stated that the Sari of the deceased was also stained with blood. In his cross-examination he has stated that the court-yard of the deceased was Dot surrounded by any wall. It was open and in one side there was a room. In paragraph 20 of his cross-examination he has said that he examined Harihar Pandit (P.W. 2). These are the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 17. In his cross-examination he has stated that the court-yard of the deceased was Dot surrounded by any wall. It was open and in one side there was a room. In paragraph 20 of his cross-examination he has said that he examined Harihar Pandit (P.W. 2). These are the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 17. As noticed above, the defence has also examined three witnesses, out of them D.Ws. 1 and 2 have proved the contents and execution of the sale deed by virtue of which the appellant had purchased some land from the husband of the deceased, Jaya in the year, 1977 and the possession of which was given to the appellant. 18. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and no body has seen the actual assault on the deceased. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses referred to above shows that the appellant Satya Narayan Pandit was seen inside the room of the deceased, Jaya Devi who was lying in the pool of blood and writhing in pain besmeared with blood. The appellant was seen coming out from the room of the deceased with blood stained spade in his hand. He was accosted by tile people assembled there and he entered into his room and bolted from inside. The room was opened by the persons assembled there and he was brought out from his room along with spade and he was produced at the Police Station on the date of occurrence at about 4.30 p. m. immediately within two hours from the alleged time of occurrence. True it is that no body has seen the actual assault done by the appellant on the body of the deceased but from the evidence it is apparent that the deceased was in her room and there was no other person and when the people assembled on hulla of P. W. 1, many people saw the appellant coming out from the room of Jaya Devi with blood stained Kudal in his hand and Jaya Devi was writhing on the ground with pain besmeared with blood. 19. It is well settled that before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence the circumstances, in question, must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. It is well settled that before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence the circumstances, in question, must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. When a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests, first the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, secondly those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and thirdly the circumstances taken collectively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by accused and none else. If these three said tests are satisfied, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, even if no direct evidence of assault is available on the record. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions that the circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent to the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the instant case, as we have found from the evidence, the appellant was coming out from the room of the deceased with a blood stained KUDAL (spade) where the deceased was writhing in pain inside the room besmeared with blood. We have no hesitation to hold that no inference of innocence can be drawn against the appellant, and it was the appellant, who committed the crime. 20. Apart from this, it was contended that all the witnesses who were examined in this case, were interested and partisan witnesses, therefore, their evidence should not be relied upon. In this connection we may indicate here that so far as P. Ws. 4 and 5, are concerned, they are said to be independent witnesses. 21. There is no hard and fast rule that a conviction can not be based on the evidence of partisan witness, but the court has to be careful while dealing with such oral evidence. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are closely related with the deceased and they are interested witnesses. But we may observe that close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness. Ordinarily, a close relative intends not to screen the real offender. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are closely related with the deceased and they are interested witnesses. But we may observe that close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness. Ordinarily, a close relative intends not to screen the real offender. 22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the evidence of these witnesses can be relied upon because they have seen the appellant coming out of the room of the victim with a blood stained spade in his hand where she was found in critical condition and ultimately she died. There is nothing to disbelieve the oral testimony. 23. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.