JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This is an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed u/s 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C. holding the accused Appellants guilty there under and convicting them to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 12.7.1985, the informant Munuklal Patel after returning from field at 7.00 p.m. informed by one Bharat Ram Patel that the accused persons have assaulted their elder father and mother, went to the house of Harihar Patel accompanied by one Tularam and others. On reaching the house, they found Rasila Patel lying unconscious who ultimately was found to be dead. Harihar Patel had received severe injuries was able to talk feebly who informed that both the accused persons assaulted him and his wife with fist blows, slaps and kicks. The Grama Rakhi of the village was present at that time. On being instructed by the Grama Rakhi the informant wants to the police station on the following day and reported the matter. The police took up investigation, visited the spot, held inquest on the dead body of Rasila and sent Harihar Patel for his treatment to the hospital, where Harihar Patel succumbed to his injuries, after the inquest, both the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. Ultimately, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused persons u/s 302/34, I.P.C. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. A suggestion was given to the witnesses that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of one Muna Das with whom they have got landed dispute. 4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses, of whom P.W. 3 Mahesram Patel and P.W. 6 Golapi Patel are the eye witnesses. Bijay Lal Nayak (P.W. 7) and Tularam Patel (P.W. 8) are the post-occurrence witnesses and P.W. 9, Dr. K.C. Das, is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased persons and P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. 5. P.W. 3, however, turned hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W. 6, the daughter of the deceased persons is the eye-witness to the occurrence who deposed in details about the assault on her father and mother by the accused persons. P.W.6 thereafter went to call P. Ws. 5. P.W. 3, however, turned hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W. 6, the daughter of the deceased persons is the eye-witness to the occurrence who deposed in details about the assault on her father and mother by the accused persons. P.W.6 thereafter went to call P. Ws. 7 and 8 and informed them that her father and mother have been assaulted by the accused persons by fist blows, kicks and slaps. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the material on record and the statement of witnesses found that the death of the deceased was caused due to the assault inflicted by the accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found categorically that the accused persons had voluntarily caused grievous hurt on the person of the deceased persons which led to the death of deceased persons and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he also found that the offence comes within the purview of Section 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C. instead of Section 302/34, I.P.C. On finding the accused persons guilty under the aforesaid sections, he has imposed the sentence of four years R.I. and Rs. 100/- as fine on each of them and in default, to undergo R.I. for fifteen days. 7. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceases persons and as such, is an interested witness and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have scrutinized the evidence of P.W.6 carefully and cautiously and that in view of the categorical finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that P.W.6 is of idiotic type, he ought to have scrutinized the evidence of P.W.6 more cautiously and that having not been done, the conviction and sentence passed there under is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that P.W.6 having stated in her cross-examination that she had not seen the actual assault on her father and mother by the accused persons and that she had no knowledge of hanging of a saree for drying, her statement ought not to have been relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to return a verdict of conviction. It is contended that in view of autopsy report and statement of P.W. 9 who conducted the post-mortem and the statement of P.W. 6 that fist blow, kicks and slaps were given by the accused persons the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have held that the prosecution has, not been able to bring home the charge against the accused-appellants. 8. Let me now consider the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants as to whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge has actually placed reliance on the sole testimony of the only eye witness P.W. 6, the daughter of the deceased persons the other eye witness P.W.3 having become hostile. 9. The law is well settled 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. The Apex Court in the case of ( Dalip Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, has laid down that close relationship with the victim far from being a foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth. The law is equally' well-settled that a close relative of a victim is not an interested witness and his evidence is not only reliable, but preferred to other evidence or Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in this regard in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh. However, the fact that a witness is a relation of the victim is not a ground for rejecting his evidence, but his evidence should be considered carefully. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be taken note of and whether the presence of the relative at the place of occurrence was normal and natural in which case his/her testimony cannot be disbelieved on the pretext of corroboration from other independent witnesses. If the evidence of a witness is corroborated by medical evidence, she cannot be disbelieved merely because she happens to be daughter of both the deceased persons. In this regard reference may also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shamu Balu Chaugule Vs. State of Maharashtra, . 10. If the evidence of a witness is corroborated by medical evidence, she cannot be disbelieved merely because she happens to be daughter of both the deceased persons. In this regard reference may also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shamu Balu Chaugule Vs. State of Maharashtra, . 10. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the house of P.W.6 is near the place of occurrence and it is quite normal that having heard the hue and cry from her parental house, in normal course, she would be first to arrived at the place of occurrence. The occurrence has taken place inside the Courtyard of the deceased persons and it is the statement of P.W.6 that hearing hullah, she came running and saw that the accused Appellants were quarrelling with her mother and father and assaulting them with fist blows, kicks and slaps. P.W.9. the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Harihar Patel and Rasila Patel, found five external injuries on the body of deceased Harihar and on dissection he noticed that there was fracture on fifth left rib and rupture of left lung and hemorrhagic fluid on the right pleural cavity and the right lung was congested. According to the doctor all the injuries were post-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to internal injuries to the vital organ like lungs leading to shock. Similarly, while conducting post-mortem on the dead body or Rasila Patel, the doctor also found five number of external injuries and on dissection, he noticed that the liver was ruptured at the lobe and hemorrhagic fluid in the peritoneal cavity and right pleural cavity. According to the doctor all the injuries were post-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to injury on the vital organ like liver. The doctor had proved the post-mortem report vide Exts. 8 and 9 respectively. It is in the evidence of P.W.6 that on the date of occurrence she was talking with Janki at a distance of 25 yards from the place of occurrence and hearing hullah, she came to the place of occurrence and found that the accused persons were quarrelling with her father and mother and were assaulting them with fist blows, kicks and slaps. It was her statement that due to assault her mother fell on the ground and when the father of one Munku Dada protested, the accused persons did not listen. She also called Mangulu (P.W.2) and Bijayalal Nayak (P.W.7) and informed them about the assault on her father and mother by the accused persons. This eye-witness (P.W.6) was examined through an interpreter since she expressed her inability to depose in Court language, in Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that she has come from a rustic village and is of idiotic type and in that background from the demeanor the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found her version to be true and trustworthy. The learned trial Court has rightly taken note of the fact that the deposition of P.W.6 can be relied on as truthful evidence since she has clearly stated that the deceased persons were assaulted by kicks, fist blows and slaps and not by any other weapon of assault which she could have developed in case she intend to rope the accused persons some how or other. The statements of Grama Rakhi (P.W.2) and Ward Member (P.W.8) lend support to the version of this witness (P.W.6) that immediately after the occurrence she called them to the spot narrating the incident implicating the accused persons. The evidence of P.W.6 has been found to be beyond exaggeration inasmuch as P.W.3 who has ultimately not supported the case of the prosecution in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence while he was returning home found that the accused persons were quarrelling with the deceased persons and on his protest to the accused persons not to quarrel, the latter did not listen to him and asked him to mind to his own business where after he left the place. In view of the statement of P.W.3 which lent corroboration to the evidence of P.W.6 that there was quarrel between the deceased persons Harihar and Rasila in one side and the accused persons on the other at the place of occurrence on the alleged date, the prosecution story has to be believed. The statement of P.W.6 that P.W.3 was present at the time of occurrence gets corroboration from the testimony of P.W.3 even though he has turned hostile later. The statement of P.W.6 that P.W.3 was present at the time of occurrence gets corroboration from the testimony of P.W.3 even though he has turned hostile later. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has however, found that the accused persons have no intention to cause death of their older uncle and aunt having not come with lethal weapon of attack. Instead of assaulting the deceased persons with lethal weapon, they gave only fist blows, kicks and slaps out of a quarrel which originated at that place. Therefore, it cannot be said from their act and conduct that they had either the intention of causing the death of the deceased persons or that they had the knowledge that by such act they were likely to cause death of their uncle and aunt. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the accused persons voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the persons of the deceased who ultimately led to death and considering this he has found that the case comes within the purview of Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The aforesaid order is not under challenge by the prosecution, but by the accused-appellants and, therefore, I am not required to go into that question. 11. On analysis of the evidence on record and placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.6 which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, an eyewitness who turned hostile and the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 8, I do not find any infirmity with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge to interfere with the said order in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and as such, is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed