P. G. Agarwal, J. — This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.97 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1995, thereby convicting the accused appellant under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for two months. On 7.6.93 at about 8 PM Nur Mohammad, PW 1 lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge, Moirabari PS to the effect that on that day at about 3.30 PM Md Maizuddin was stabbed to death by the accused persons, namely Azizul Haque, Abdul Khaleque, Fazlul Haque, Rajab Ali, Omar Ali, Rusmat Ali, Habibur Rahman and Abdul Matin. Police registered a case and after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon framed charges under section 302/34 IPC against all the accused persons and a separate charge under section 302 IPC against the accused appellant Azizul Haque. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement, was examined as Court Witness No. 1. The statement of the accused persons were recorded and upon conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted 7 accused persons and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal from jail. 4. As the appellant was unrepresented, Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to defend the convict. 5. In this case the death of the deceased at the time and place and on the date of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution stands fully established from the medical and oral evidence on record . The Doctor, Dr. Bhupesh Choudhury, PW 5 who held the autopsy over the dead body of Md Moijuddin, a 36 years old male found the following 3 numbers of clean cut injuries : (1) incised wound 4cm x 2cm x I cm on left arm, (2) incised wound 3cm x 2cm on the right umbelica region, as a result of which the intestine has come out, (3) incised wound 3cm x 2cm on the left calf. The doctor has also found lacerated injuries on the peritonium of the abdomen. The doctor has also found lacerated injuries on the peritonium of the abdomen. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. 6. Considering the oral and medical testimony, we hold that this is a case of homicide. Now the point for consideration is who killed the deceased ? On this point there is a testimony of two eye witnesses, namely, Faizuddin PW 2 and Babul Ali PW 3 who are brother and son of the deceased respectively. According to PW 2 while he was working in the field along with the deceased, the.accused appellant along with others came to the spot and accused Azizul, Abdul Khaleque and Fazal Haque stabbed the deceased with the help of dagger. His brother fell down and on alarm being raised by him, PWs 3 and 4 and other villagers arrived. The deceased, however, died at the spot. PW 1 a neighbour also came and thereafter PW 1 went to the police station to lodge the ejahar. 7. PW 3 is a student, aged about 15 years. He states that at the relevant time he was fishing at a nearby place, that is, at a distance of about 100 feet while his father and uncle were harvesting paddy, the accused persons came there and started altercation and thereafter the accused Azizul, Khaleque and Fazal assaulted his father with a dagger causing bleeding injuries. His father dies at the spot. 8. PW 2 and PW 3 are the two eye witnesses in this case and they have deposed as to what they witnessed. Although they are the near relations of the deceased, their testimony cannot be thrown out on that ground because as a matter of prudence the close relatives are generally interested to bring the culprit to book and they will not implicate false person and thereby allow the actual assailants to go scot free. The presence of the two witnesses has been well established and it was natural also because they were working on their own field and their residential houses also situated nearby. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the two eye witnesses have implicated as many as, three accused persons, whereas in the confessional statement the convict has categorically stated that it was he and he alone, who assaulted/ stabbed the deceased with the dagger. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the two eye witnesses have implicated as many as, three accused persons, whereas in the confessional statement the convict has categorically stated that it was he and he alone, who assaulted/ stabbed the deceased with the dagger. There may be two explanations for this contradiction between the testimony of eye witnesses and the confessional statement. Firstly, the accused might have tried to save the other accused persons by taking the entire burden on himself, for in the alternative the possibility of exaggeration cannot be ruled out and it is seen that sometime the witness do improve upon to their version of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge held that the other accused persons were present at the place of occurrence but as they did not participate in the act, they cannot be roped in with the help of section 34 IPC. The benefit that was given to two other accused persons, which in our opinion, was rightly done. This however, does not diminish the evidentiary value of PW 2 and PW 3's evidence. In a criminal trial the evidence of eye witnesses if accepted as true is sufficient to warrant conviction. In this case, besides the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3, we find Abdul Gaffur, a co-villager while coming to the place of occurrence after hearing 'hulla' saw the accused persons going away from the spot with daggers in their hands. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. Further the weapon of assault was also seized by the Investigating Police Officer from the possession of the accused-appellant Azizul Haque vide seizure list, Ext 3. 9. Now coming to the confessional statement which was recorded by Shri J. Ahmed, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Morigaon on 18.6.93, Ext 6. It is seen from the confessional statement that the appellant was arrested on 17.6.93 and on the next day he was produced before the Magistrate for recording the confession. The Magistrate gave him around 3 to 4 hours time for reflection and thereafter recorded the confessional statement, Ext 6. The confessional statement is in . Assamese and on translation it reads as follows : "Yes, I can. About 25 days prior to the last 'ldd' a female calf belonging to Maizuddin had got lost. Then Maizuddin lodged a case with Mairabari Police Station against me. The confessional statement is in . Assamese and on translation it reads as follows : "Yes, I can. About 25 days prior to the last 'ldd' a female calf belonging to Maizuddin had got lost. Then Maizuddin lodged a case with Mairabari Police Station against me. He also collected signatures from some villagers and lodged the same with the ULFA. He had been trying to get me killed by the ULFA. Because of that I got angry with Maizuddin. At about 3 PM on Monday preceding the last Monday, Maizuddin had been grazing his cattle at Uralkata field. Maizuddin had a sickle in his hand. My paternal uncle Hatem Ali had been working in the field near Maizuddin. Going near my paternal uncle Hatem, I talked with him regarding cultivation. Thereafter, I asked Maizuddin the reason of his harassing me. An altercation took place between Maizuddin and me. In course of altercation, Maizuddin came forward to cut me with the sickle in his hand, I then caught hold of Maizuddin's right hand with my left hand, stabbed him in abdomen first with dagger that had been with me. Then I dealt him another 4/5 consecutive blows. Immediately he felled down on the ground leaving him, I went in a run. I alone killed Maizuddin. The rest of the accused persons did not kill Maizuddin. Nor did they come to the place of occurrence. A little later I came to learn that Maizuddin had died at. the place of occurrence itself. I myself killed Maizuddin and now I confers my guilt voluntarily. This is what I have got to say." 10. During his examination under section 313 CrPC the accused retracted the confession stating that he made the above statement due to the threat given by the police. However, when he Investigating Police Officer was examined before the Magistrate no suggestion was put to him that he had threatened the accused appellant. Considering the details nature of the version given by the accused, learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the confession is voluntary. We are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge. The retraction of the confession at such later stage does no create any doubt regarding the voluntary nature of the confession. But let us consider whether the confession is true and whether there is material corroboration to the same. We are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge. The retraction of the confession at such later stage does no create any doubt regarding the voluntary nature of the confession. But let us consider whether the confession is true and whether there is material corroboration to the same. The date, time and place of the occurrence as stated in the Ext 6 stands fully corroborated by the prosecution evidence on record. The weapon of assault in this case was a dagger and the prosecution evidence support this. As a matter of fact, the weapon of assault was seized from the possession of the accused. The medical evidence on record also supports the confessional statement. Further, as per the prosecution witnesses the motive for murder was filing of a case by the deceased against the accused over the alleged stealing and killingof a cow by the person The accused also states that a cow belonging to the deceased was found missing and the deceased suspected him and filed a case against him and at the time of the occurrence he had asked an explanation from the accused on this point In view of the overwhelming corroboration of the confession, we hold that the confessional statement can be accepted and relied upon. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and decisions, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under section 302 IPC was rightly recorded and we accordingly confirm the same. The appeal stands dismissed.