JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-4-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda in sessions case No. 36 of 1989 convicting the two appellants, namely, Jalaluddin and Aminul Islam under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further six months. 2. The case in short is that on 12-2-88 at or about 9.05 a.m. P.W. 1 Arefa Bibi lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliachak P.S. alleging, inter alia, that on that very day at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning her co-wife Saheya Bibi held informant and her family members responsible for theft of some money though the said money was recovered later on in her own house. On this issue there was some alteractions between the appellant No.1 Jalaluddin and others. When Ashu Sk. (since deceased) being the husband of the informant was passing through kachha road near the house of Jalaluddin and Mannu, Aminul Haque, Ziel Haque and Safiqul Haque and after surrounding him Ziel Haque and Aminul Haque began to assault the deceased Ashu Sk. severely with sharp cutting hasua on different parts of the body of the deceased, Safiqul and the appellant No.1 caught hold of the deceased and the deceased fell down on the road with grievous injuries. Later on, the deceased was shifted to Silampur Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to MaIda Sadar Hospital for better treatment. On the basis of this complaint an F.I.R. was registered at the Kaliachak P.s. under section 326/34 I.P.C. As the deceased subsequently succumbed to his injuries, section 304 I.P.C. was also added in this case. 3. After usual investigation police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants and other accused persons under section 304/34 I.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malda. 4. Upon perusal of the materials-on-record, the learned Trial Court framed charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. against the two appellants and two other accused, namely, Safiqul Haque and Ziel Haque to which both the appellants as well as the other accused pleaded not guilty. 5. In course of the trial, in all 14 P.Ws. were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the appellants. 5. In course of the trial, in all 14 P.Ws. were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the appellants. The defence of the appellants was that of complete denial of the prosecution case as alleged. It must be mentioned here that after charge was framed and during pendency of the trial of the case, the accused Ziel Haque had absconded. On conclusion of the trial, two appellants were convicted and sentenced as already stated. So far as accused Safiqul Haque is concerned, the Trial Court found that he was a juvenile offender and, therefore, his case was separated and split up from that of the appellants and his case was remanded for disposal to the Juvenile Court in accordance with law. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosal, the learned Counsel for the State. 7. In this case only P.W.1 Arefa Bibi is the eye witness. Her evidence before the Trial Court in short is that on the date of occurrence at about 6.00/6.30 a.m., the appellant No.1 Jalaluddin and accused Safiqul caught hold of the deceased and the other two accused, namely, Ziel Haque and Safiqul Haque and the appellant No.2 Aminul Islam started assaulting the deceased with sickles on a kachha road about 10/15 cubits away from her house. This witness claims to have seen the entire incident. However, being attracted by this incident when the neighbours started coming to the spot, assailants fled away towards the house of one Kalimuddin with the sickles in their hands. Her husband sustained severe incised wounds on several parts of his body and he was immediately shifted to the hospital by the villagers. Initially he was shifted to Kaliachak Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Malda Sadar Hospital. On that very day she claims to have visited the police station at or about 9/10 a.m. and lodged written complaint which was registered in this case as an F.I.R. Later on her husband succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. She is also witness to the inquest proceedings conducted by the concerned police officer. She further stated in her cross-examination that at that time she was sleeping and being attracted by hue and cry she went to the road and saw the whole incident. She is also witness to the inquest proceedings conducted by the concerned police officer. She further stated in her cross-examination that at that time she was sleeping and being attracted by hue and cry she went to the road and saw the whole incident. Some of her villagers, namely, Nizamuddin, Abdul Malek, Ersad, Kamijuddin were also present when she came to the place of occurrence being followed by others. Nizamuddin, Abdul, Malek and Ersad intervened and separated the deceased from the appellants in order to save him from further assault. She noticed severe incised wounds on various parts of the body of the deceased. Her complaint was drawn up by scribe Rouf as dictated by this witness and same was taken by her to Kaliachak Police Station. This is, in short, the evidence given by P.W. 1 before the Trial Court. 8. The next witness P.W. 2 did not support the prosecution case and as he resiled from his earlier statement before the police, he was cross-examined by the prosecution with permission of the court. However, he admitted in his examination-in-chief itself that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping and on hearing hue and cry he came out of his house and saw a gathering of some persons. He also noticed that deceased was being shifted from the place of occurrence on a cot. He further heard from the local people that appellant No.1 and his son had assaulted and injured the deceased. 9. P.W. 3 Mowla Sk. in his evidence before the learned trial court stated that he did not see the incident nor did he make any statement to the police in connection with death of the deceased. Therefore he was declared hostile by the prosecution and with leave of the court this witness was cross-examined. He in fact resiled from his earlier statement that this witness made before the police. Learned trial court also recorded that this witness refused to identify his signature on a document and he claimed before the trial court that he could not read or write. He in fact resiled from his earlier statement that this witness made before the police. Learned trial court also recorded that this witness refused to identify his signature on a document and he claimed before the trial court that he could not read or write. He even refused to answer certain questions put to him by the Public Prosecution and, accordingly, learned trial court recorded that refusal to answer the questions put to him by a public servant authorised to ask such questions is an offence under section 179 I.P.C., and, therefore, directed initiation of criminal prosecution against his witness under section 179 I.P.C. He even denied having given any signature on the seizure list of sickles. 10. P.W. 4 Md. Kamizuddin stated in his evidence that he knew Arefa Bibi and also her husband being the deceased. He admitted that the deceased died in an incident which took place due to some disturbance amougst the members of his own family. However, ultimately this witness did not support the prosecution case as he resiled from his earlier statement recorded by the police. For this reason, prosecution after declaring him hostile cross-examined the witness with leave of the court. However, one fact is clear that he has admitted during his examination-in-chief that the deceased died in an incident due to some disturbance which took place amongst the members of his own family. Therefore, the evidence of this witness does not support the prosecution as he turned hostile. 11. P.W. 5, Dr. Ajoy Kr. Das, held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. On examination he found the following injuries ;- 1) One incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/4 x bone deep was found at the right parietal region of the scalp. 11. P.W. 5, Dr. Ajoy Kr. Das, held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. On examination he found the following injuries ;- 1) One incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/4 x bone deep was found at the right parietal region of the scalp. The upper table of the bone was found to be cut; 2) One incised wound 21/3" x 1/4 x scalp deed x starting from the right parietal region extending towards right temporal region of the scalp; 3) One lacerated wound 1" x 1/4” x scalp deep on the left parietal region of the scalp; 4) One incised wound 10" x 2" starting from the right shoulder extending over right arm cutting skin, tissue, muscles, vesseles part of the head of right humerus and outer end of the right clavicle; 5) Muscle deep incised would ½” x ¼” at the outer aspect of the lower part of right forearm; 6) One incised wound 6" x ¾” x muscle deep on the outer aspect of the middle of left arm; 7) Skin deep incised wound ½” x ¼” on posterior aspect of the left elbow; 8) Abrasion ¾” x ¼” at posterior aspect of left forearm; and 9) One incised wound 5" x 3" x muscle deep found at posterior lateral aspect of left knee. This witness was of the further view that the aforesaid injuries together were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries could be caused by sickles also. 12. P.W. 6 is the siezure witness of the wearing apparals of the deceased which were seized by the I.O. in the hospital. P.W. 7 was tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 8 is the scribe of the F.I.R. 13. P.W. 9 is S.I. of Police who at the time of his deposition was attached to Harishchandrapur P.S. On 12-2-88 he as the S.I. attached to Kaliachak P.S. took up the investigation of the case, on being endorsed by the O.C. of the same P.S. His evidence goes to show that he visited the P.O. prepared rough sketch map of the same with the index and seized two hasuas (sickles). On being produced by Kalimuddin son of Amir Sekh of village Alinagar in presence of witnesses on a seizure list. Examined witnesses in connection with the investigation of the case and recorded the statements under section 161 Cr. On being produced by Kalimuddin son of Amir Sekh of village Alinagar in presence of witnesses on a seizure list. Examined witnesses in connection with the investigation of the case and recorded the statements under section 161 Cr. P.C. of such witnesses. In the cross-examination stated that there was no specific mark on the weapons, namely, sickles at the time of seizure of the same but those weapons were stained with blood. But at the same, the witness admitted in his evidence that the sickles which have been produced in the court did not contain any blood stain. But this witness did not complete the investigation. P.W. 10 is the S.I., Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty who on 12-2-88 was O.C. Kaliachak P.S. On that day about 9.05 hours he received a written complaint from Arefa Bibi and after filing formal F.I.R. started the investigation to the Kaliachak P.S. case No.8 dated 12.2.88 under sections 326, 341 I.P.C. and endorse the case to P.W.9 for investigation. P.W. 11, Ananda Gopal Dutta is the Homeguard who at the relevant point of time was attached to English Bazar P.S. He witnessed S.I. Sontosh Singha Roy of that P.S. to District Hospital Morgue and who hold an inquest over the dead body of Ashu Sekh on 13-2-88. Later on this witness took the dead body with necessary papers and identified such dead body before the doctor at the time of P.M. examination. 14. P.W. 12 Dr. J.C. Saha was the Medical Officer Surgeaon attached to Malda District Hospital. On 12-2-88, on that day victim Ashu Sekh was admitted to the hospital under his care and after admission the victim was examined by the witness who found the following injuries in his person:- 1. Two lacerated wounds about 3 inch x 1/2 inch x skin deep each on scalp. 2. One lacerated wound on left arm about 6 inch x 2 inches x muscle deep. 3. Lacerated wound on left political region of left knee about 5 inches x 3 inches x muscle deep. 4. Lacerated wound over right shoulder on superior aspect about 9 inches x 2 inches x muscles deep. 15. P.W. 13, S.I. A.C. Banerjee was O.C. Kaliachak P.8. On 28-5-88 he received the case diary of the instant case and took up further investigation of the case. He ultimately submitted chargesheet under section 341/326/304 I.P.C. against the F.I.R. named accused persons. 16. 15. P.W. 13, S.I. A.C. Banerjee was O.C. Kaliachak P.8. On 28-5-88 he received the case diary of the instant case and took up further investigation of the case. He ultimately submitted chargesheet under section 341/326/304 I.P.C. against the F.I.R. named accused persons. 16. P.W. 14, Sontosh Singha Roy was the Sub-Inspector of Police who at one point of time took up the investigation of the case. 17. It transpires from the judgment impugned that the learned Sessions Judge fully relied on the evidence of P.W. 1, the informant widow of the victim Ashu Sekh in arriving at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused/appellants. In doing so, he recorded that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on whom reliance was placed for coming to the ultimate conclusion. The learned Judge also mentioned the evidence of the doctor who held P.M. examination over the dead-body of the victim on 13-2-88. 18. As the matter stands now, there is the sole oral testimony of the wife of the victim, namely, Arefa Bibi on the point of occurrence. The other witnesses examined on such point coming to witness box refused to disclose anything about the incident or tried to take a different stance from that of their earlier position like that of P.W. 2 Ersad Ali who before the court stated on oath that on the date of incident he heard an uproar from his house and coming out of the house he found a crowd and also noticed that victim Ashu Sekh was being carried from that sopt in a cot, and he came to learn from the local people all about the incident that is say the allegation that accused Jalaluddin and his sons launched assault on the victim, although before the police at the time of investigation he categorically stated that hearing an uproar he went running to the place of occurrence along with others and saw accused Jalaluddin and three sons Aminul, Ziel and Safiqul who were assaulting the victim Ashu Sekh with Lathi, Hasua and farash (as per the evidence of one of the I.Os, (P.W. 9) S.1. Hirendranath Roy). Hirendranath Roy). Be that as it may, it is settled law that the conviction of accused can be based on the evidence of a sole eye witness provided such evidence is dependable on which the court can rely in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We have already seen that P.W. 1 in her evidence has clearly stated how she could witness the incident and what happened after the assualt launched by the accused persons. It is to be mentioned here that according to the evidence of this witness she came out from her house hearing an uproar and had the occasion to see the incident from a distance of 10/15 cubits from her house. This witness was cross-examined at length. But her consistent stance that she witnessed the incident in which her husband was murdered by the accused/appellant and others was not demolished in the least. Of course, we find from such cross-examination that the house of the witness and her husband and houses of other brothers of the victim were adjacent to each other and on the same road and since the incident complained of took place in the morning time there were other witnesses as well who were not examined by the police or on being examined refused to give any statement on oath before the court in support of the prosecution case. It is also true that the sole witness on the point of incident is closely related to the victim. But through the long cross-examination, the defence has failed to point out any material infirmity in her testimony. Even no enmity has been suggested to her to furnish her any motive for false implication of the accused. In a case reported in 1977 Crl. Law Journal 342, the Apex Court held that where there was no previous enmity between the deceased or his relatives on one side and the accused on the other, the evidence given by the relatives of the deceased could not be considered as suspect needing corroboration from the independent witnesses. It is well settled that in the absence of any independent witness, the evidence of the witnesses who are stated to be interested should not be thrown out at the behest of the defence. It is well settled that in the absence of any independent witness, the evidence of the witnesses who are stated to be interested should not be thrown out at the behest of the defence. What the law requires is that where the witnesses are interested the court should approach the evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. This is more so, in view of the fact that the evidence of interested witnesses is not like that of an approver which is presumed to be tainted and requires corroboration but the said evidence is as good as any other evidence. In a case reported in 1988 Crl. Law Journal 1307, this court held that even granting that there was an enmity between prosecuting and accused parties on account of party revalry, for that reason alone, the evidence of prosecution witnesses should not be discarded. On this point, the law is well settled that the evidence of a partisan witness may be acted upon even without corroboration if his or her presence, in the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. In the instant case, there is no indication, in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the occurrence complained of took place at any other place than what has been stated by the witness and in that background it can be said without hesitation that the spot where the incident complained of took place was only 10/15 cubits from the house of the victim, the husband of P.W. 1. P.W.1 has categorically stated in her evidence that she was present in the house and hearing the out cry she came out and witnessed the incident. The allegation that the incident took place in the vicinity of the house of P.W. 1 and that it took place at a time, when she was present in the house and that she came out of the house and witnessed the incident remained unchallenged. In that circumstance, it can be said that the witness is a natural witness to such incident as her presence in the vicinity of the P.O. cannot be doubted. 19. In that circumstance, it can be said that the witness is a natural witness to such incident as her presence in the vicinity of the P.O. cannot be doubted. 19. In her evidence P.W. 1 gave a clear impression that the incident complained of took place in the morning time at about 6/6.30 a.m. She came out of the house, hearing an uproar and saw the appellant Jalaluddin and another to hold her husband Ashu Sekh and the other appellant Aminul with another were assaulting the victim with hasua (sickles). The accused persons fled away from the spot when the people of the locality assembled there. Now, the doctor who held the P.M. examination over the dead body of the victim found three incised wounds on the scalp of the victim as noted in S1. Nos. 1 to 3, of the injuries found by the doctor (P.W. 5). That apart, the said doctor found one incised wound starting from right shoulder extending over right arm cutting skin, tissue, muscles etc. and other few incised wounds on the lower part of the right forearm, outer aspect of middle left arm, posterior aspect of left elbow and posterior lateral aspect of left knee, as noted in S1. Nos. 4 to 9 of the injuries seemed by such doctor. Now it transpires from the evidence of P.W. 12, the medical officer, who had the occasion to examine the injuries of the victim, after the victims admission in the Malda District Hospital that he found lacerated wounds on the scalp of the other parts of the victim. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that the doctor, under whom the victim got admitted in the hospital (P.W. 12), found some lacerated wounds on the person of the victim. But the doctor who held the P.M. examination over the dead body only noticed incised wounds. So, there is vital discrepancy about the nature of injuries sustained by the victim. But in our opinion, the aforesaid discrepancy cannot go to the root of the case to make the entire allegations levelled against the accused improbable. Ordinarily the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. But in our opinion, the aforesaid discrepancy cannot go to the root of the case to make the entire allegations levelled against the accused improbable. Ordinarily the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the eye witnesses, the testimony of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. (1983 Crl. Law Journal S.C. 822). Considering the matter in that light we find that the evidence of the eye witness here goes to show that the victim was assaulted by a sharp cutting weapon, viz., hasua (sickles). We further find from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 12) under whom the victim was first admitted that the wounds in the person of the victim were stitched. From the evidence of P.W. 5, the doctor who held the P.M. examination over the dead body of the victim, we further get that the doctor examined the wounds after removing the stitch. So it can be said without hesitation that there is no inconsistency between the evidence of the eye witness and the evidence of the doctors. Here we like to point that death of the victim in the incident which took place on the day as alleged by P.W. 1 gets corroboration from some other witnesses on the point of incident who were declared hostile by the prosecution. But in a recent case (Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) reported in 2000 AIR SC Weekly 4439. The Apex Court has observed as follows :- "It is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. In a criminal trial where prosecution witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record all together. In a criminal trial where prosecution witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record all together. It is for the court of the fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. In appropriate cases a court can rely upon the part of testimony of such witness if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy." In the instant case one of the witnesses, viz., P.W. 2 has tried to give an impression before the trial court that he heard all about the incident whereas before the police he described the incident wherein the victim was murdered as an eye witness to such incident. So far as other witness on the point of incident are concerned they have also refused to state anything implicating the accused persons with the offence complained of. But from the total evidence of these witnesses one thing has emerged very clearly that the victim Ashu Sekh was killed, and in this way they have corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 that her husband met with an unnatural death in the incident complained of. The evidence of P.W. 1 further goes to implicate the accused persons with the offence complained of and we find nothing to discredit this witness. Therefore, we can very well place our reliance on the evidence of P. W. 1 to come to a conclusion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found the accused / appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of-the Indian Penal Code. We have got nothing to take a different view from that the learned Sessions Judge on this point or on the point of sentence which was awarded to the accused/appellants on their conviction under the aforesaid provision of law. 20. In the result, the appeal fails. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the court below at an early date. Appeal dismissed.