N. L. GANGULY, J. This appeal by Raghuraj Singh, Virendia Pratap Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh and Vishwanath Singh is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-1-1984 passed by Sri U. S. Pandey, Special Judge, (Economic Offences), Allahabad in S. T. No. 416 of 1978. Appellants Raghuraj Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh have been convicted and sentenced to two years R. I. under Section 148, IPC, six months RI under Section 323/149, IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or life under Section 302, IPC. Appellants Virendra Pratap Singh and Vishwa Nath Singh have been convicted and sentenced to two years RI under Section 147, IPC, six months RI under Section 323 and 323/149, IPC, respectively. Both of them have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149, IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The incident took place on 3rd of September, 1978 at about 1 p. m. at village Barji P. S. Soraon, District Allahabad. The FIR was lodged by Sabha Singh on the same date at 2. 30 p. m. The distance of Police Station from the place of occurrence is about 6 miles. Five persons were named as accused in the FIR except Raghu Nath, accused, the remaining four are appellants. Raghu Nath, accused had died after framing of the charges in the Court below. The prosecution examined PW-1 Sabha Singh, informant and Smt. Shanti Devi PW-2, both are injured witnesses. The prosecution examined formal witnesses, namely Charan Singh, Sub-Inspector, II I. O. (PW-3) PW-4 Dr. Vijai Pal, PW-5 Sheo Karan Singh, constable, PW-6 N. N Paladi, PW-7 Sudarshan Lal Awasthy, S. 1. 1st I. O. 3. The defence also examined three witnesses, namely Sipahi Lal, constable DW 1, Head Constable Kalka Prasad Tripathi DW 2 and Visheshwar Nath DW 3. 4. The FIR Ext. Ka 13, the informant Sabha Singh had lodged a written report and stated that he is resident of village Barji P. S. Soraon District Allahabad. Baj Bahadur Singh s/o Chandra Pal Singh was murdered in the year 1966 in which the informant, his cousin Ram Singh and Arjun Singh and few other persons were implicated as accused. The informant and other co-accused persons of the said case were acquitted by the Court. Since then the family members of Baj Bahadur were nourishing enmity against the informant and his family. The informant and other co-accused persons of the said case were acquitted by the Court. Since then the family members of Baj Bahadur were nourishing enmity against the informant and his family. On 3-9-78 at 1 p. m. his brother Ram Singh was going to give the fodder for the bullocks and the informant was going to his house after taking bath while Bali Ram s/o Ram Bharose, Ram Adhar s/o Maharani Din residents of the informants village, were sitting at the door of his house and were talking with informants sister Shanti Devi @ Bitti. In the meantime Raghu Raj Singh aliasraghu Nath Singh s/o Chander Pal Singh armed with gun, Mahendra Pratap Singh alias Lallan Singh s/o Brij Raj Singh armed with pistol in the right hand and holding a knife in the left hand, Virendra Pratap Singh alias Kallu Singh s/o Raghu Raj and Vishwanath Singh s/o Chandra Pal Singh, armed with lathis arrived at the house of the informant from the southern side. Raghu Raj accosted to assault Ram Singh, so that he may not be left to survive alive. In me meantime, Mahendra Pratap Singh fired with his pistol on Ram Singh which hit him, Ram Singh after who shot fell on the spot. The informant said to have rushed to the spot running, in the meantime Raghu Nath came near Ram Singh and fired with his gun towards him. The gun shot hit on the head. The head got fractured Raghu Nath Singh fired with his gun on the back, below the waist of Ram Singh, which caused injured on the sheet. Raghu Nath fired a second shot. In the mean time, the informant caught his gun. Virendera Pratap Singh alias Kallu Singh attacked with lathi on the informant and caused injuries on the head and scapula shoulder. The informant left Raghu Raj Singh and took shelter near the wall. The informants sister Smt. Shanti Devi alias Bitti had also run to save. Vishwanalh Singh, appellant assaulted her with lathi. Ram Singh, brother of the informant died due to the gun shot. The informants shrieks and crying attracted Bali Ram, Ram Adhar and many others of the village, who had arrived there. The accused persons after assaulting, ran towards east. The informant, his sister Smt. Shanti Devi, Bali Ram, Ram Din and many villagers had seen the incident. 5. Ram Singh, brother of the informant died due to the gun shot. The informants shrieks and crying attracted Bali Ram, Ram Adhar and many others of the village, who had arrived there. The accused persons after assaulting, ran towards east. The informant, his sister Smt. Shanti Devi, Bali Ram, Ram Din and many villagers had seen the incident. 5. PW-7 Sudarshan Lal Awasthy, S. I. was posted at P. S. Soraon on 3-9-78 Raj Narain was the Head Constable working on that day there. The written report was lodged by the informant Sabha Singh. A chick report Ext. Ka 13 on the basis of the written report Ext. Ka 1 was prepared by Raj Narain, Head Constable, in presence of the witness Sudarshan Lal Awasthy. The FIR and the chick report was proved by this witness. Sudarshan Lal Awasthy (PW-7) started the investigation and had recorded the statement of the informant at the Police Station and also had recorded the statement of Raj Narain, Head Constable Moharrir. After lodging of the report, he proceeded to the spot. S. I. Balbeer Singh was deputed for preparing the inquest memo. The panchayat nama (Ext. Ka-9) was prepared by S. O. Balbeer Singh which bears the signature of the punches. Balbear Singh S. I. is dead. 1he inquest memo was proved by this witness. Sri Awasthy recorded the statement of Smt. Shanti Devi on the spot andalso recorded the statement of the other witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the site- plan and proved Ext. Ka-15 with index. 6. At about 6. 30 p. m. Smt. Shanti Devi PW-2 was sent through Arjun Singh for medical examination. Samples of plain and blood stained earth were also taken and sealed in different containers. The recovery memo for the said blood stained and plain earth proved as Ext. Ka-16. A pair of shoe of the deceased was also recovered from there, memo was prepared which is proved as Ext. Ka-17. The I. O. recovered a used cartridge and a piece of oelt of cartridges which was also recovered and memo was prepared and proved. Three cartridges were also recovered from the place of incident and separate memo was prepared after keeping them in sealed cover and proved as Ext. Ka-19. Ka-17. The I. O. recovered a used cartridge and a piece of oelt of cartridges which was also recovered and memo was prepared and proved. Three cartridges were also recovered from the place of incident and separate memo was prepared after keeping them in sealed cover and proved as Ext. Ka-19. A knife was also recovered from the place of incident, recovery of the knife was also proved, memo of recovery marked and proved as Ext. Ka-20. A pair of black shoe was also recovered from the place of occurrence which appeared to belong to some of the accused persons which was also marked as Ext. Ka-21. Sri Awasthy remained in the village on the said night and on the next day, had recorded the statements of other witnesses, trying to search out the accused persons. The injury reports of Sabha Singh and Shanti Devi were received by Sri Awasthy at the Police Station. The investigation was continuing. The report was sent to the S. I. S. The material exhibits recovered at the place of incident have been proved in the Court also. 7. The deadbody of the victim Ram Singh alias Bangu Singh which was brought to the mortuary by Constables Laxmi Narain Misra and Sheo Karan Singh and identified by them was placed before PW-4 Dr. Vijai Pal, Senior Physician ofs. S. P. G. Hospital, Varanasi for post-mortem. He conducted the post-mortem examination of the deadoody of the deceased at about 3 p. m. on 4-9-78. The injuries on the deceased found on the post-mortem examination are quoted as under : (1) Fire-arm wound of entrance on right side of temporal region just outer to right eye 1" x I" x skull cavity deep. (2) Fire-arm wound of entrance right side of face upper part 1" x 3", 1/2" below injury No. 1. Depth is skull cavity deep. * (3) Fire-arm wound of exit right side of head 9" x 3" x skull cavity deep. (4) Four fire-arm wounds of exit in an area of 4" x 4" middle of left side of head behind left ear, each measuring 1/2" x 1/2" x skull cavity deep. (5) Fire-arm wound of entrance middle of right injural region 3/4" x 2" x communicating to injury No. 6. (6) Fire-arm wound of exit right buttock lower part. (4) Four fire-arm wounds of exit in an area of 4" x 4" middle of left side of head behind left ear, each measuring 1/2" x 1/2" x skull cavity deep. (5) Fire-arm wound of entrance middle of right injural region 3/4" x 2" x communicating to injury No. 6. (6) Fire-arm wound of exit right buttock lower part. 6" x 1" communicating to injury No. D. (7) Punctured wound left side of chest outer and middle 3/4" x 1/2" chest cavity deep. It is punctured wound with both sharp margins. (8) Punctured wound with both sharp margins front of left axillary fold 3/4" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep. (9) Incised wound right left front and middle (sic) x 1/2" x 1/4". (10) Abrasion 1" x 2" behind left shoulder lower part. (11) Incised wound inner side of right ankle joint 1/2" x 1/2" x 4". Note.- Margins of injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are blackened, and scorched, tatooed and inverted. The margins of exit wounds are not blackened, nor tatooed nor scorched and are everted. 8. On internal examination, skull bones were found to have been fractured at base, top and side. Brain was liquified and coming out of the skull wound. The left side ribs were found to have been fractured under injury No. 7. The third and fourth ribs of the left side were found to have been fractured under injury No. 8. The left lung was punctured in its upper part. The left pleural cavity contained pint of blood. The stomach contained about 6 ounces of semi solid food. Small intestines and urinal bladders were empty. The large intestines had faecal matter. One big pellet and 3 pieces of wadding were recovered from the body. 9. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the aforementioned ante-mortem injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. The injuries of Sabha Singh and Smt. Shanti Devi were examined by Dr. N. N. Paladi (PW-6), M. O. Sorapn Hospital on 3-9-1978 at 4. 30 p. m. and 10. 15 p. m. respectively. He found the following injuries on the person of Sabha Singh : (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x boney deep on the left sides of head. Distance 7 cm from left top of the ear. N. N. Paladi (PW-6), M. O. Sorapn Hospital on 3-9-1978 at 4. 30 p. m. and 10. 15 p. m. respectively. He found the following injuries on the person of Sabha Singh : (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x boney deep on the left sides of head. Distance 7 cm from left top of the ear. (2) Bruise 4 cm x 2 cm on the right shoulder joint. (3) Abrasion 5 cm x. 2 cm x skin deep on left side of abdomen. Distance 16 cm from umblicus. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Smt. Shanti Devi: (1) Bruise 17 cm x 2 cm on right side of back. Distance 22 cm from right shoulder joint. (2) Abrasion 1 cm x. 5 cm on anterior side of left leg. Distance 14 cm from knee (3) Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm on anterior side of left leg. Distance 2 cm below injury No. 2. 11. On the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries are simple and caused by blunt object except injury No. 3 of Sabha Singh and injury No. 2 of Smt. Shanti Devi, which are caused by blunt object rough surface. The duration of all the injuries of Sabha Singh appeared to be fresh while the duration of all the injuries of Smt. Shanti Devi appeared to DC 1/2 day old. 12. During the investigation, the 1st I. O. Sri Sudarshan Lal Awasthy, PW-7 came to know that accused Raghu Raj Singh and Raghu Nath Singh possessed licensed gun, previously, the investigation was done by S. O. Sudarshan Lal PW-7. Later the investigation was concluded by Sri Charan Singh Sharma, SI PW-3, who submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the accused persons and the accused appellants pleaded not guilty. It is stated by the accused persons that Raghu Nath Singh accused was at the relevant time posted as Head Constable at P. S. Mangalpur District Kanpur and at the time of alleged murder, he was at Managalpur. A pedigree stated by the appellants show that Raghu Raj Singh, Vishwanath Singh and Raghunath Singh are real brothers, Virendra Pratap Singh is son of Raghu Raj Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh is Bhanja of appellants. Sabha Singh PW-1 is the cousin of the deceased Ram Singh. Smt. Shanti Devi PW-2 is the sister of Ram Singh. A pedigree stated by the appellants show that Raghu Raj Singh, Vishwanath Singh and Raghunath Singh are real brothers, Virendra Pratap Singh is son of Raghu Raj Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh is Bhanja of appellants. Sabha Singh PW-1 is the cousin of the deceased Ram Singh. Smt. Shanti Devi PW-2 is the sister of Ram Singh. The relationship between the appellants and the deceased co-accused and their relationship between the deceased and the witnesses are not disputed. It is also admitted in the statement of the accused that in 1966 Raghurajs brother Baj Bahadur was murdered and Sabha Singh and Ram Singh were prosecuted for the murder. These persons were convicted by the Sessions Court and acquitted in appeal by the High Court. The appellants denied false implication of Ram Singh, Sabha Singh and others in 1966 case. 13. The version given in the First Information Report has been corroborated by PW-1 Sabha Singh and PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi. The evidence of Dr. Vijai Pal Singh PW-4, who had conducted the post- mortem examination and evidence of PW-6 Dr. N. N. Paladi, who had examined the injured witnesses PW-1 Sabha Singh and PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi nave been proved by the witnesses. 14. The learned defence Counsel Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturyedi submitted that the prosecution case is wholly unbelievable and the witnesses examined in the case are not worthy of belief. Sri Chaturvedi placed before the Court the evidence of defence witness DW 1 Constable R. K. Bansal, who proved the entry in the general diary of PW-Mangalpur District Kanpur dated 1-9-78, 2-9- 78 and 3-9-78. He also placed the evidence of DW 2 Sri H. C. Kalka Prasad Tripathi of PS Mangalpur, who proved that on 6-10- 78 accused Mahendra Pratap Singh, Raghu Raj Singh. Vishwanath Pratap Singh and Virendra Pratap Singh were arrested by Sub-Inspector Pravcen Singh SI of PS Colonelganj Allahabad. DW 3 Constable Harinder Narain Singh stated that on 1-9-78 he was the constable Moharrir at PS Mangalpur District Kanpur. Raghunath Singh, deceased co-accused was Head Constable No. 134 posted there on the said date. Raghu Nath Singh had left P. S. Mangalpur on 1-9-78 for appearing in the Court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. His return entry is shown to be on 3-9-78 at 4. 15 p. m. at P. S. Mangalpur District Kanpur. 15. Raghunath Singh, deceased co-accused was Head Constable No. 134 posted there on the said date. Raghu Nath Singh had left P. S. Mangalpur on 1-9-78 for appearing in the Court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. His return entry is shown to be on 3-9-78 at 4. 15 p. m. at P. S. Mangalpur District Kanpur. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that on 3rd of September 1978 according to the prosecution case, the incident took place at 1 p. m. in village Barji. It was not possible for Raghunath Singh, deceased co-caused to have participated in the commission of the offence at village Barji P. S. Soraon Allahabad and also to reach at PS Mangalpur Distt. Kanpur at 4. 15 p. m. on 3-9-78. He submitted that the distance between Allahabad to Kanpur is 200 kms. and P. S. Soraon is not less than 25 kms. from Allahabad city from where the distance between Allahabad and Kanpur is calculated. He also submitted that P. S. Mangalpur is towards west of the Kanpur City and that would further add more kilometres to the distance. He submitted that it is not possible for a person to have committed an offence at 1 p. m. in village Barji P. S. Soraon District Allahabad and simultaneously I e present at P. S. Mangalpur Kanpur the same day at 4. 15 p. m. This plea of alibi is for Raghunath Singh, deceased co-accused. Sri Chaturvedi submitted that the role assigned to Raghu Nath, deceased co-accused and the role assigned to the present appellants Raghu Raj Singh is to be armed with gun and allegation of assault by Raghu Nath is also there in the commission of the offence. He submitted that in view of this alibi which is not oral evidence alone but documentary evidence to show that Raghu Nath accused could not be possible to be present at 1 p. m. in village Barji when offence was said to have been committed. If the witnesses of the case can implicate a person and assigned specific role of murder, is shown to be patently false in view of alibi evidence, the other witnesses examined in the case also becomes highly doubtful and unbelievable which rendered the entire prosecution case unworthy of belief. 16. Sri Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellants, pointed out to the defects of the prosecution and investigation done in the case. 16. Sri Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellants, pointed out to the defects of the prosecution and investigation done in the case. He submitted that the blood stained earth was not sent for opinion of the Chemical Analyst which admittedly was taken by the I. O. Similarly the blood stained knife said to have been left at the place of occurrence was recovered by the I. O. It was neither sent for opinion by the Chemical Examiner nor the knife was shown to the witness PW-4 Dr. Vijai Pal Singh who had conducted the post-mortem examination. The guns of Raghunath Singh and Raghu Raj Singh, accused persons, were not seized during the investigation nor the empty cartridges recovered at the place of incident was sent to the Ballistic Expert to ascertain that the empty cartridges recovered were fired from the gun of the accused Raghuraj Singh and Raghunath Singh. He also pointed out that pair of shoe of the accused person, as stated by the witness, was not proved to be of the present appellants or Raghunath Singh, co- accused deceased. It was necessary for the prosecution to have proved that the shoes recovered at the place belong to some of the accused persons which could have fixed clinchingly that a particular accused person was present at the time when the incident took place. He also submitted that no application was moved by the prosecution to ask any or the accused persons to wear the shoe to show that they belong to him. 17. Sri Chaturvedi critised the statements of PW-1 Sabha Singh, PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi and submitted that Sabha Singh (PW-1) is the causing of the deceased Ram Singh and Smt. Shanti Devi is the sister-in- law of deceased Ram Singh. They are not only close relations and highly interested and inimical witnesses against the accused person. Their evidence should not be accepted and unbelieved. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed a serious error in appreciation of their evidence and believing them. The learned Counsel for the appellant cited 1992 Vol. II SC SVLR (CR) 256anpuma Datt and others y. State of U. P It is submitted that in the said case also there had been a long standing dispute over some landed property between the two sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant cited 1992 Vol. II SC SVLR (CR) 256anpuma Datt and others y. State of U. P It is submitted that in the said case also there had been a long standing dispute over some landed property between the two sides. An accused of the case Devi Dutt was convicted by the trial Court but acquitted in appeal by the High Court which was said to be a reason for long standing dispute between the two groups, a false attempt was made by the prosecution to implicate the main accused and these three persons. It was also submitted that the veracity of alleged eye- witnesses cannot be accepted in view of the admitted findings by the Sessions Court and also of the High Court that the eye-witnesses had deliberately implicated innocent person because of partisan attitude. It was shown that as many as 7 innocent persons were falsely implicated m that case. Since individual eye-witnesses were also partisan and over jealous, they had also being making false statement. Thus, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the witnesses of said type were to be disbelieved. A perusal of the entire judgment (supra) shows that simply because some false acquisition was made by individual witness in respect of seven accused, their evidence were not liable to be rejected out-right but their evidence were to be considered and appreciated with caution. 18. Sri Chaturvedi placed before us the evidence of eye-witnesses PW-1 Sabha Singh and PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi and also the evidence of DW 1 Sipahi Lal, DW 2 Kalka Prasad Tripathi and DW 2 Harinder Narain Singh to show that Raghu Nath Prasad, co-accused who died after framing of the charge in the case, was falsely implicated in the cases evidence from the evidence of DW 3 Harmder Narain Singh who had proved that at PS Mangalpur at 4. 15 p. m. Raghu Nath Singh is shown to have been present and had put his signature in the C. D. of his arrival at the Police Station. The learned Counsel submitted that alibi evidence fully proved that it was not possible for Raghunath, deceased co-accused to be present at the place of incident at 1 p. m. on 3-9-78 which is more than 200 kms, more than that no one can reach the distance of more than 200 kms. The learned Counsel submitted that alibi evidence fully proved that it was not possible for Raghunath, deceased co-accused to be present at the place of incident at 1 p. m. on 3-9-78 which is more than 200 kms, more than that no one can reach the distance of more than 200 kms. and little more within three hours 15 minutes. The learned AGA Sri KC Saxena submitted that it is not at all difficult to cover 200 kms. in 3 hours 15 minutes. He also submitted that the statement of DW 3 Harinder Narain Singh shows that the G. D. entry dated 1-9-78 of the Police Station when it is said that the deceased Raghunath Singh had left the said Police Station at 6. 35 p. m. for attending the Sessions Court, there is no initials or signature in the G. D. of rawangi whereas in the G. D. dated 4-9-78 at 4. 15 p. m. below the entry, there is one writing as r which is said to be the initial of Raghunath Singh, deceased co-accused. The defence evidence itself shows that on 1 -9-78 Raghunath Singh had left P. S. Mangalpur had was present at Pratapgarh on 2-9-1978. Pratapgarh is connected by road through Soraon. The distance between village Barji PS Soraon and Pratapgarh is about 25 kms. It is also to be noted that the genera! diary of 3-9-78 at P. S. Mangalpur do not show that Raghunath Singh, deceased co- accused had signed the G. D. The letter r after G. D. entry of 3- 9-78 is not clinchingly shown to be of Raghunath Singh, deceased co-accused. The deceased accused Raghunath Singh was a constable in service. No one would take risk of false implication of such a person whose name and presence at a distant place was likely to be proved, the informant and the witnessed would not take that risk. The alibi evidence about the presence of Raghunath Singh at P. S. Mangalpur was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and we also do not consider the alibi evidence to be such evidence which may demolish the prosecution case and the injured eye- witnesses to be disbelieved. 19. The alibi evidence about the presence of Raghunath Singh at P. S. Mangalpur was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and we also do not consider the alibi evidence to be such evidence which may demolish the prosecution case and the injured eye- witnesses to be disbelieved. 19. Before further referring and considering the veracity of the evidence of injured eye-witnesses PW-1 Sabha Singh and PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi we would like to examine the legal aspect about the manner of appreciation of evidence in case of witnesses who are related and inimical. The trial Court also referred to the decision of AIR 1981 SC 82 - Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The relevant consideration at page 87 is quoted as under: "it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisonship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting the sworn testimony. Nor it can be laid down as an invariably rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable it may be itself be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet, in most cases, in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as first step to focus attention on the question whether the presence of the witness on the scene of crime at the material time was probable. If so whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness being consistent with other evidence on record, the natural course of time, events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answers to these questions are to be in the affirmative and the evidence of the witnesses appears to the Court to be almost flawless and free from suspicion it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. If the answers to these questions are to be in the affirmative and the evidence of the witnesses appears to the Court to be almost flawless and free from suspicion it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. Since perfection in this imperfect world is seldom to be found and the evidence of a witness more so of an interested witness is generally fringed with embellishment and exaggerations however true in the main, the Court may look for some assurance, the nature and extent of which will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case. The other case AIR 1983 SC 680 (Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street only passersby will be witnesses. " In AIR 1977 SC 472 - Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under: "moreover, a close relative who is very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other conviction for some animus or for some other reason: Such is not the case here. In 1983 AIR SC 364 it has been observed that: "a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from source which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate his falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings, run high and there is personally cause for enmity, that there is tendency to bring in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge atongwith the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. . . . . . . . . . . . " 20. . . . . . . . . . . . " 20. In the present case, PW 1 Sabha Singh and PW 2 Smt. Shanti Devi are no doubt related to the deceased and the previous criminal case in which PW 1 was an accused may be a ground for harbouring ill-will but it is not this fact alone which would render the evidence of both the witnesses unworthily of belief. They are placed at a better pedestal now. They are injured witnesses. It has not been shown that the injuries of these two persons are fake and connected. These two witnesses did receive the injuries in the course of the occurrence. Their injuries have been proved by PW 6 Dr. N. N. Paladi. 21. From the evidence on record, it is fully established that the prosecution has been successful in proving the occurrence did take place in village Barji on 3-9-78 at 1 p. m. The report of the incident was lodged at the police station without delay at 2. 30 p. m. The learned Counsel for the appellants have placed the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses in extenso and the same arguments which were advanced before the learned Sessions Judge have been advanced before us to show that the Sabha Singh and PW 2 Smt. Shanti Devi are related to the deceased Ram Singh and enmity of Sabha Singh with his family members with the accused persons Raghuraj Singh, Raghunath Singh and others, we do no consider necessary to repeat the evidence, referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants about PW 1 and PW 2 which are elaborately mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court which we consider and find to be correct and legal approach of the Court below in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 22. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the investigation in this case was defective. The points of defect in the investigation are narrated in the earlier part of the judgment itself. 22. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the investigation in this case was defective. The points of defect in the investigation are narrated in the earlier part of the judgment itself. He submitted that on account of the non-seizure of the guns of the accused persons, said to have been used in the commission of the offence, not getting the opinion of the Ballistic Expert in respect to the cartridges found at the spot which could have been obtained from the Ballistic Expert getting the opinion about the guns of the accused persons had it been seized. The learned Counsel further submitted that the blood stained earth recovered from the place of occurrence was not sent to the Serologist for his opinion that it was the human blood. The failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence and investigate on the aforementioned points, in our opinion, does not constitute any ground for disbelieving the eye-witnesses who are not simply eye-witnesses but also injured witnesses. Had the prosecution examined the blood stained earth and proved it to be stained with human blood by the Serologist and getting an opinion from the Ballistic Expert to show that the empty cartridges recovered at the place were used and fired with guns of the accused persons, had the gun of the accused appellants seized and recovered. Had the prosecution investigated the case and obtained Ballistic Expert opinion and opinion of the Serologist that the incident did take place at the place as set up by the prosecution. If that evidence would have been procured and adduced in the case, that would have further strengthened the prosecution case. In the absence of those evidence, the prosecution case is proved by other injured witnesses and the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, and the proved the injuries of the injured witnesses. Their presence have been proved at the place of incident at the relevant time. The omission of non-investigation of the case on the lines suggested would not sufficient to discard the prosecution evidence and the witnesses. 23. Lastly the learned Counsel submitted that besides the two injured witnesses who are related to the deceased, those are interested witnesses. Admittedly, there were other persons of the village who had witnessed the incident. Non-examination of other independent witnesses renders the prosecution case doubtful. 23. Lastly the learned Counsel submitted that besides the two injured witnesses who are related to the deceased, those are interested witnesses. Admittedly, there were other persons of the village who had witnessed the incident. Non-examination of other independent witnesses renders the prosecution case doubtful. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine large number of witnesses in a case to prove the prosecution case. The Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1957 SC 614 (Vadivelu Thevars v. State of Madras) observed: " (i) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness lough uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. (2) Unless corroboration is instisted upon by stature, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases were the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that 9orroboration should be insisted upon for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character. (3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each and no general rule can be laid down In a matter like this much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes. " 24. In the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving the brutal murder of Ram Singh, deceased at the hands of the appellants, as detailed above. The F. I. R. is prompt without delay. There is no just and cogent ground to disbelieve and discard the injured witnesses PW 1 Sahab Singh and Smt. Shanti Devi PW 2. The alibi evidence to show Raghunath Singh, deceased co-accused was at the P. S. Mangalpur at the relevant time is not reliable. 25. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, and consideration of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the Court below is perfectly correct, according to law based on correct law and correct appreciation of evidence. The judgment and order do not call for any interference or modification. The judgment and order of the court below is upheld. 26. The criminal appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. The judgment and order do not call for any interference or modification. The judgment and order of the court below is upheld. 26. The criminal appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They may be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences. Appeal dismissed. .