JUDGMENT S.C.Jain (1.) APPELLANT, Autar, has filed this appeal against Judgment and order dated 24.3.1979 passed by Sri S. S. Srivastava, the then VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 1977 convicting the appellant under Sections 323 and 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years respectively. The sentences mentioned above were also made to run concurrently. (2.) IN brief, the prosecution version as is apparent from the record is that the appellant and the deceased belong to the same village Mahuawa police station Pharenda, district Gorakhpur. On 6.5 1974 at about noon Smt. Murati and her son. Ram Charan were sitting outside of the house and Murati's husband, Bhullan, deceased, went to take bath on the well situate near his house. IN the meantime, appellant's wife, Smt. Koela came to take water from the well to which Bhullan objected. This led to a quarrel between Autar, husband of Smt. Koela, and Bhullan aforesaid and during the said quarrel the appellant, Autar caused injuries to Bhullan by Akhain, as a result of which Bhullan received injuries on the skull and right temporal region. He was taken to hospital Pharenda. A report of the occurrence was lodged on the same day at the police station at 7.25 p.m. same day, 6.5.1974. A case was registered for an offence under Section 308. I.P.C. but subsequently on the death of Bhullan the case was converted into Section 304, I.P.C. During post-mortem conducted on the dead-body of Bhullan following injuries were found : 1. Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep, vertical on top of skull anterior end 4-1/2" from the bridge of nose. 2 Contused swelling 5" x 6" on right temporal region. On external examination haemotoma was found under the scalp. Long sub-scalp haemotoma was found present in the right temporal region and the vertical linear fracture was found on top of right temporal region involving the right temporal bone, right and left parietal bone and frontal bone. Brain was deeply conjested on right side and sub-dural haemotoma was present on the right temporal parietal region. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to coma as a result of head injuries. Brain was deeply conjested on right side and sub-dural haemotoma was present on the right temporal parietal region. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to coma as a result of head injuries. (3.) THE prosecution examined nine witnesses and on the basis of the statements of these witnesses including the medical report the trial court found the appellant, Autar guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I), I.P.C. for the death of Bhullan. He was also found guilty under Section 323, I.P.C. for causing injuries to Smt. Murati, wife of Bhullan and as such he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. (4.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the trial court on various grounds. He pointed out minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. According to him the name of Chowkidar who took the injured has been wrongly mentioned at various places. Whether he was Kashi or Malloo was not clear in the mind of complainant, Smt. Murati. According to him the presence of Smt. Murati and her son Ram Charan on the scene of occurrence is doubtful. According to the learned counsel the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it is very unsafe to base conviction of the appellant on the testimony of Murati, widow of Bhullan, Ram Charan son of Bhullan as they are relatives and interested witnesses. Other material witnesses have been kept back and have not been examined by the prosecution. In the village there are several other persons who could have seen the occurrence but no other witness has come forward to depose anything in support of the prosecution case. He drew my attention towards the statements of Smt. Murati, P.W. 2, and Ram Charan P.W. 3, wherein they contradicted each other on material point. P.W. 2 has stated that Malloo, Chowkidar, had come to Pharenda alongwith the deceased. She clearly stated that Kashi, Chowkidar, had not come. According to the Investigating Officer and the post-mortem report Kashi, Chowkidar, had come to Pharenda with the deceased. This contradiction is fatal to the prosecution case. He also pointed out that Murati, P.W. 2, has deposed in her statement that Malloo and Kashi live in one house. She clearly stated that Kashi, Chowkidar, had not come. According to the Investigating Officer and the post-mortem report Kashi, Chowkidar, had come to Pharenda with the deceased. This contradiction is fatal to the prosecution case. He also pointed out that Murati, P.W. 2, has deposed in her statement that Malloo and Kashi live in one house. This contradiction in the name of Chowkidar goes to the root of the matter. He also pointed out that P.W. 2, Murati, deposed in her statement that the doctor told that the condition of her husband was serious and, therefore, he was taken to district hospital Gorakhpur. On account of these contradictions the learned counsel stated that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. He also argued that when Murati received injuries while saving her husband her clothes must have become blood stained, but her blood stained clothes have not been produced. This is also fatal which goes against the prosecution case. (5.) THE arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has got no weight in the facts and circumstances of the case. THE presence of Murati at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. She was medically examined by Dr. C. M. Srivastava, (P.W. 1) Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Pharenda on 7.5.1994 at 8 a.m. and she was found having two injuries, i.e. contused swelling 2" x 1" on the right side of forehead just above the eye-brow and contused swelling 1-1/2" x 1" on the dorsum of left hand and she was complaining headache. THE injuries were found to be simple and caused by some hard and blunt object. He also stated that these injuries could have come by Akhain, Ex. 1. THE injuries were noted in the injury report, Ex ka. 1. (6.) THE only question which requires consideration is whether the statement of this lady, Murati, who is the wife of deceased, and that of P. W. 3, Ram Charan son of Bhullan, deceased, should be discarded only on the point that they are relatives and interested witnesses. It is settled law that on this ground the statement of the witnesses should not be discarded. It is settled law that on this ground the statement of the witnesses should not be discarded. In Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in 1976 SCC (Crl.) page 646, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. (7.) IN this case it is true that both these witnesses, namely, Murati, P.W. 2 and Ram Charan, P.W. 3, are related to the deceased, and, as such, are interested witnesses, but their antecedents or mere interestedness was not a valid ground to reject their evidence. Persons with such antecedents are not necessarily untruthful witnesses. Mere relationship with the deceased was not a good ground for discarding their testimony when, as I have already held their presence at the scene of occurrence was probable. All that was necessary to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care and circumspection with reference to the part and role assigned to each of the accused. (8.) BOTH the witnesses, Murati and Ram Charan are corroborative in their statement about the occurrence and the act played by appellant, Ram Autar. BOTH of them were sitting outside of the house near the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence with their own eyes. They have stated that the appellant caused the injuries to the deceased, Bhullan, with Akhain, Ex. 1 and when she tried to save her husband, she also got injuries with that weapon, Ex. 1. Her statement found corroboration from the medical evidence. The minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which do not go to the root of the matter are not sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution version. Whether it was Malloo or Kashi, it is immaterial. 1. Her statement found corroboration from the medical evidence. The minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which do not go to the root of the matter are not sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution version. Whether it was Malloo or Kashi, it is immaterial. Whether he was Malloo or Kashi, who took the injured to the hospital, his role is only to that extent. He is not an eye-witness and, therefore, this contradiction in the name of Chowkidar is not material. This type of minor contradictions are to be ignored. (9.) REGARDING the presence of blood on the clothes of lady, Murati, she has stated that she got the blood stained Dhoti. Ex. 2, blood stained Angochha, Ex. 3 and Sari pieces having blood stains, Ex. 4, to the Station Officer. Dhoti and Angochha belonged to her husband while Sari belonged to her. She had put a sweater Ex. 5, beneath the head of her husband to be used as a pillow. The Sub Inspector took that sweater also into his possession. Even if the absence of blood on the clothes of the wife of the deceased and the witnesses cannot lead to a conclusion that the witnesses were not present. Murati, the widow of the deceased, claimed that she was present with her husband at the time of occurrence. The evidence disclosed that Murati tried to save her husband from the blows that were given to her husband and in that process she also received injuries. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way, some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing, some start shouting for help, others ran away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible, yet others rush to the rescue of the victim even going to the extent of counteracting the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unreliable and unimaginative way. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unreliable and unimaginative way. (10.) WHATEVER may be the position, the fact remains is that the statement of Murati coupled with the statement of Doctor and the medical report is more than sufficient for conviction of the appellant, Autar, under Section 304 (part-I) read with Section 323,I.P.C. I find no ground to interfere in the judicial finding of the learned trial court. The sentence awarded in this case is also not towards higher side. In these circumstances I dismiss the appeal having no merits. (11.) THE appellant is already on bail. He be taken into custody by issuing non-bailable warrant for undergoing the sentence awarded. Appeal dismissed.