K.T.THOMAS, J. (1) THE three appellants were among the five accused arraigned before the Sessions Court for the murder of Charan, At 11.00 p.m.; on 21-8-1989 the Session Court convicted all the five, but the High Court acquitted two women among them and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the remaining three who are the appellants before us. (2) FIRST appellant-Shanti is the father of the second appellant-Ramun and brother of third appellant-Bjajan. According to the prosecution version, the appellants and the other two accused have gatecrashed into the house of the deceased during odd hours when deceased Charan was sleeping. The assailants pulled him up and dragged him out and brought him to a machine fitted with blades for cutting fodder. His neck was placed in such a way that the machine when rotated cut his neck severing the major blood vessels and caused his death instantaneously. (3) THE incident was spoken to by the wife of the deceased as Public Witness 1, the mother of the deceased as Public Witness 3 and the son of the deceased as Public Witness 2. All of them pointed to the appellants and the two lady accused as the assailants. (4) THE trial Court acted on the evidence of those three eye-witnesses and convicted ail the five. The Division Bench of the High Court also acted on the testimony of those three eye-WITNESES and found that the prosecution has proved the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, the High Court persuaded itself to acquit the lady assailants by over stretching the doctrine benefit of doubt. As those two acquitted accused are not before us we do not wish to say anything further about them in this judgment. (5) MR. Shib Shankar Sarkar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that there were material discrepancies as between the narration of the three eye-witness. He cited the discrepancies for our consideration, but they are all discrepancies relating to the details of the occurrence and could not be countenanced as malerial discrepancies. They are all natural variations as between detailed narrations of any occurrence when more than one witness make them. Learned counsel then contended that all those eye-witnesses are highly interested persons and hence it is not safe to rely on their evidence. They are all natural variations as between detailed narrations of any occurrence when more than one witness make them. Learned counsel then contended that all those eye-witnesses are highly interested persons and hence it is not safe to rely on their evidence. When those eye-witnesses were the inmates of the house wherefrom the deceased was dragged out and guillotined at the dead of night how can a Court of law brush aside the testimony of such formidable evidence merely on the premise that they were the kith and kin of the deceased? It is too weak a contention for countenance. (6) LEARNED counsel then contended that assailants could have, if they wanted to murder the deceased, avail themselves of better opportunities than this time when all the inmates were present in the house. We cannot visualise any other situation and the time which could have been chosen by the assailants to be the best for the operation, It is for the assailants to make the choice and they did it at a time which they deemed it fit. (7) MR. Anjali Doshi, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, submitted that the timing was so chosen by the assailants which was close to the heels of a Panchayat held on the eve of the occurrence day. The differences between the assailants and the deceased could not be sorted out at the said Panchayat. Hence learned counsel endeavoured to show before us that the blood boiled to such an extent that they had chosen that very night to annihilate their adversary-deceased Charan. We do not find any serious infirmity in the evidence of the three eye-witnesses whose testimony the trial Court and the High Court believed. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.