Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the judgment dated 28-1-1992 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 192/90 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with sentence of life imprisonment. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is as under :-On 20-5-1990 at about 1. 30 p. m. deceased Pyarelal and his brother Radhelal (P. W. 5) were on their way to the house of their sister. On way the appellant and his brother Hari Prasad (co-accused) intercepted them. Hari Prasad thereafter gave lathi blows to Radhelal (P. W. 5) and when pyarelal, the deceased, intervened to save Radhelal (P. W. 5), appellant repeatedly assaulted him with a sword. Pyarelal sustained three injuries on his person, one on his hand and two on his chest. Witnesses Ramawatar (P. W. 2) and nirmala Bai (P. W. 4) on seeing the incident came running to the place of occurrence. They were also assaulted by Hari Prasad (co-accused ). Pyarelal breathed his last on the spot. Information of the incident was reported by ramawatar (P. W. 2) to the Police which was recorded as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-6 ). Dr. R. K. Patel (P. W. 3) conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. The cause of death of Pyarelal as per post-mortem report (Ex. P-8)was due to stab injury which penetrated into the heart. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. ( 3. ) THE accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated. ( 4. ) THE prosecution examined Dr. Mahesh Chandra Garg (P. W. 1), ramawatar (P. W. 2), Dr. R. K. Patel (P. W. 3), Nirmala Bai (P. W. 4), Radhelal (P. W. 5), Jagroop (P. W. 6), R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 7), Fatehsingh (P. W. 8) in support of its case. The accused person examined Sohanlal (D. W. 1) in their defence. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court relying upon the evidence of eye- witnesses radhelal (P. W. 5), Ramawatar (P. W. 2), Nirmala Bai (P. W. 4) and Jagroop (P. W. 6) convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The Trial Court however, convicted co-accused Hariprasad only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court relying upon the evidence of eye- witnesses radhelal (P. W. 5), Ramawatar (P. W. 2), Nirmala Bai (P. W. 4) and Jagroop (P. W. 6) convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The Trial Court however, convicted co-accused Hariprasad only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year. Hari Prasad has preferred to undergo the sentence and has not challenged his conviction. ( 6. ) SHRI Ramesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the Trial Court committed an illegality in believing the prosecution case against the appellant. It has been argued by him that looking to the place of incident it was not possible for the witnesses to see the incident and that the witnesses being close relatives of the deceased their evidence should not have been relied upon. ( 7. ) NO doubt the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased but their evidence can not be discarded on this ground alone. It is a well settled principle of law that the witnesses who are closely related to the deceased, their evidence has to be evaluated carefully with appropriate caution but their testimony can not be discarded solely on that count. Sometimes they are the most natural witnesses. The duty of the Court is to scan it with certain circumspection. Radhelal (P. W. 5) is an injured eye-witness. He is brother of deceased Pyarelal and cousin of the appellant. He has deposed that on 20-5-1990 at about 1. 30 p. m. when he and his brother Pyarelal (deceased) were going on foot to the house of their sister, on the way the appellant and his brother Hariprasad intercepted them and thereafter Hariprasad inflicted lathi blows on him and when the deceased Pyarelal intervened to save him, appellant repeatedly assaulted him with a sword as a result of which he sustained three injuries on his person one on his left hand and two on his chest. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discard his evidence. His version has been fully corroborated by the injury report (Ex. P-3) and the post-mortem report (Ex. P-8 ). Dr. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discard his evidence. His version has been fully corroborated by the injury report (Ex. P-3) and the post-mortem report (Ex. P-8 ). Dr. Mahesh Chandra Garg (P. W. 1) has deposed that he examined Radhelal (P. W. 5) on 20-5-1990 and he found six injuries on his person which were caused by hard and blunt object as per Ex. P-3. The evidence of Radhelal (P. W. 5) has also received corroborated by the immediate information given to police about incident by Ramawatar (P. W. 2), which was recorded as Dehati Nalishi. Similar is the evidence of Ramawatar (P. W. 2) and Nirmala Bai (P. W. 4 ). They have deposed in one voice that they saw the appellant and Hari Prasad the co-accused assaulting deceased Pyarelal and injured Radhelal (P. W. 5) and as they reached the place of incident to save them, they were also beaten with lathis by Hari Prasad. Dr. Mahesh Chandra garg (P. W. 1) has deposed that he had also examined Ramawatar (P. W. 2), nirmala Bai (P. W. 4) and had found injuries on their person as reported is Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2. The other eye-witness Jagroop (P. W. 6) has also stated in his evidence that he on hearing the cry came out of his house and saw that Hari prasad was inflicting lathi blows on Radhelal and when Pyarelal tried to intervene, appellant caused injuries on his body with a sword. ( 8. ) THE argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that witnesses could not have seen the incident is unacceptable as the spot map which he has placed reliance upon has not been exhibited by the prosecution. On the other hand, on a close scrutiny of the spot map which has been exhibited as Ex. P-9, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Even otherwise we are satisfied that the witnesses were very much present at the place of incident and in fact they were assaulted. Their evidence is absolutely direct without any kind of embellishment and to propone a theory that they were not in a position to see the occurrence is totally beyond any kind of logicality. Their evidence is fully reliable. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Their evidence is absolutely direct without any kind of embellishment and to propone a theory that they were not in a position to see the occurrence is totally beyond any kind of logicality. Their evidence is fully reliable. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. In view of the above clinching eye-witnesses account against the appellant, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant guilty of charge of murder. ( 9. ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal has no merit and it has to be dismissed and so we direct. Criminal Appeal dismissed.