This appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 10th December, 1990 propounded by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby he has sentenced Brij Lal, Kohli Ram and Nanak Chand to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1, 000/- each for offence under section 304 RPC Part-II read with Section 34 RPC and further convicted and sentenced Romesh Chander, Parkash, Feji Ram, Rattan Lal, Mst.Kenu, Mst.Guddi w/o Rattan Lal and Mst Guddi w/o Romesh Chander to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 323 RPC, and also further convicted all the appellants/accused and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-each for offence under Section 147 RPC and also sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment each under Section 447 RPC and that all the sentences to run concurrently in giving credit of the period of detention already undergone during the currency of investigation, enquiry or trial to the accused; and further in default of payment of respective fines, the appellants /accused Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram would undergo further simple imprisonment for three months, accused Romesh Chander, Parkash, Feji Ram, Rattan Lal, Titru Ram, Mst.Kenu, Mst.Guddi w/o Rattan Lal and Mst.Guddi w/o Romesh Chander to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month each and further all the accused would suffer further simple imprisonment for one month each. 2. Facts that culminated in the prosecution of the accused taken from the judgement of the Trial Court in resume may be noticed.On the morning of 18.5.1987, PW Ashok Singh accompanied by his brother Jai Singh deceased had gone to their field for ploughing the land allotted to them.Jai Singh deceased started ploughing the land with the yoke and Ashok Singh digging the ridge of the land.In the meantime, all the accused shouting on the top of their voice that they would kill them, forced their entry into the land of Ashok Singh, Complainant and Jai Singh, deceased, clandestinely.The Complainant and Jai Singh stopped working. Where, where upon three accused, namely, Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram proceeded towards Jai Singh deceased and caught hold of him, whereas the remaining accused held Ashok Singh and started assaulting him.The accused had thrown Jai Singh on the ground, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, accused, caught hold of Jai Singh deceased and Brij Lal accused, who was carrying a stone, sat on the chest of the deceased Jai Singh and struck him on his abdomen with the stone in his possession.On hearing their scream, Ashok Singh S/o Gian Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh repaired to the scene of occurrence; on seeing whom, the accused fled away from the spot. Ashok Singh, Complainant, who had also received injuries, removed Jai Singh in precarious condition to the hospital, but he lost his breath on the way near Army Camp.PW Ashok Singh, Complainant, instead of going to the hospital, then proceeded towards the Police Station where he lodged a report of the occurrence (marked as EXPAS), which became the basis of First Information Report under Sections 302/307/147/148/149/447 RPC read with 34 RPC.The Police Swang into action.The dead body of the deceased was taken to the hospital for post-mortem.After effecting the seizure of the incriminating material recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and on conclusion of the investigation, all the accused were finally sent up to stand their trial for alleged offence under Sections 302/307/147/148/149/447 RPC and the learned Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them accordingly. 3. Mr.M.A.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently urged that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the Complainant, their evidence is interested and smacks of partisan and unless corroborated by the eye witnesses, cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty and record their conviction.It is further stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective.The evidence brought on record is qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt so as to record their conviction.Mrs.Shaista Hakeem, Government Advocate, on the other hand, argued that the direct evidence coupled with the incriminating circumstances and the manner of testimony relied upon by the prosecution is consistent only with the hypothesis that the accused only had killed the deceased. 4. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr.B.A.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as well as Mrs.Shaista Hakeem, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent-State, in extenso.A minute examination of facts on file, besides pursuing the judgement rendered by the Trial Court, has been made meticulously. 5. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is both direct and circumstantial.PWs Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh, are eye witnesses of the occurrence, besides the Complainant, Ashok Singh, who himself also sustained injuries in the occurrence. PW Ashok Singh son of Sansar Singh is the real brother of the deceased Jai Singh and also allegedly beaten by the accused at the time of the incident.According to Ashok Singh, on the morning of 18-5-1987 he accompanied his brother, Jai Singh, to the field for ploughing the land. On reaching the field, he gave yoke to Jai Singh for ploughing the land and himself engaged in the digging of ridge of the land. Soon after they saw the accused shouting at the top of their voice to kill both Ashok and Jai Singh and proceeding towards their field. It is also in his evidence that after trespassing into their field, Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, accused, proceed towards Jai Singh and caught hold of him and remaining eight accused held him and started beating.The accused threw Jai Singh on the ground, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, accused, held Jai Singh and Brij Lal having a stone in his hand sat on the chest of Jai Singh and struck on his abdomen with the stone.Their cries attracted Ashok Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh at the scene and the accused, on seeing them and on believing that Jai singh has died, ran away from the place of occurrence. He found Jai Singh in serious condition and when called him, the former did not speak but found Jai Singh gasping.Deceased Jai Singh, while being taken to the hospital, died on the way near Army Camp.Then instead of going to the hospital, the dead body of the deceased was taken to the Police Station.EXPAS is the report about the occurrence lodged by him.The dead body of the deceased was seized by the Police vide seizure memo EXPQS. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted in the hospital.He also stated that the clothes of the deceased were seized vide seizure memo EXPBS-1. It is also in his evidence that after the post-mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to him by receipt EXPAS-1 for performing the last rites ceremony. The police also seized the stone vide seizure memo EXPBS bearing his signatures. It is further stated that ever since the land was allotted to them, it became an eye sore for the accused and they started litigation about the land and extended threats to liquidate them. The Complainant further stated that the land allotted in their name in their possession where the occurrence took place. 6. The substratum of the evidence of the Complainant Ashok Singh, who also sustained injuries at the time of occurrence, is that: (1) They had gone to their field for ploughing the land in the morning on the ill-starred day; (2) When the accused shouting to kill trespassed into their land, three accused namely, Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, proceeded towards Jai Singh and remaining accused caught hold of him and started assaulting. (3) The aforesaid three accused threw Jai Singh on the ground, and Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram held Jai Singh while on the ground and Brij Lal accused sat on his chest and gave a blow with a stone on his abdomen.On hearing their cries, Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Lal came on spot and witnessed the occurrence.Jai Singh deceased when was being evacuated to the hospital died on the way.He lodged FIR (EXPAS) and a case u/ss. 302/307/147/148/149/447 RPC was registered against the accused. The evidence provided by the Complainant stood corroborated in material particular by Ashok Singh Son of Gian Singh, Rattan Singh, and Ranjit Singh who has also happened to have seen the occurrence, in material particulars. 7. 302/307/147/148/149/447 RPC was registered against the accused. The evidence provided by the Complainant stood corroborated in material particular by Ashok Singh Son of Gian Singh, Rattan Singh, and Ranjit Singh who has also happened to have seen the occurrence, in material particulars. 7. According to PW Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh, another eye witness of the occurrence, examined by the prosecution, Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, accused, had caught hold of deceased Jai Singh, whereas the other accused held Ashok Singh.He further stated that when Jai Singh was thrown on the ground accused, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram held him and Brij Lal accused sat on his chest and hit with a stone on his abdomen.The other accused, who proceeded towards Ashok Singh, caught hold of the latter and assaulted him.He further stated that the FIR was lodged by Ashok Singh, Complainant, who also received injuries at the time of occurrence. Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh-were also there at that time.The witness further stated that his statement was recorded on the same date besides PWs Rattan Singh and Ranjit Singh.Similarly, PW Rattan Singh, who also is stated to to be an eye witness of the occurrence, examined by the prosecution, affirmed what is stated by Ashok Singh, Complainant and PW Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh with regard to the mode, manner in which the occurrence took place and the act of the accused Brij Lal in causing the death of the deceased Jai Singh by throwing him on the ground and Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram held the deceased Jai Singh when Brij Lal sat on his chest and hit with a stone on his abdomen.PW Rattan Singh stated that he had gone to answer the call of nature in the morning on 18-5-1987 when he saw Brij Lal accompanied by other accused entered into the land, while Ashok Singh and Jai Singh were ploughing the field, and shouted that Jai Singh and Ashok Singh be caught and killed.It is also in his evidence that Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram threw Jai Singh deceased on the ground. Nanak Chand caught Jai Singh from his legs and Kohli Ram from his arms, whereas Brij Lal sat on the chest of the deceased and struck with a stone on his abdomen twice.He made no secret of the fact that Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Bikhem Singh had also not only seen the occurrence, but were also present on the scene. The witness further stated that he repaired to the scene of the occurrence on hearing scream of Jai Singh deceased and Ashok Singh, Complainant, and when reached there saw the accused claiming Jai Singh has died and thereafter ran away from the scene. The witness also further stated that had they not reached on the spot, perhaps the accused would have also killed Ashok Singh.Jai Singh deceased was found unconscious due to the injuries caused to him by the accused and while being taken to hospital died on the way. The dead body of Jai Singh was taken to the Police Post, where report was lodged by Ashok Singh, Complainant. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted in the hospital at Akhnoor. The witness also stated that the land where occurrence took place was allotted to Jai Singh and Kaushlya Devi and the accused used to threaten them to vacate the land or would be killed.The witness emphatically stated that the place of occurrence was about 100 yards away from the place, where he was washing himself after easing, and visible.His statement was recorded by the Police on spot besides that of Ranjit Singh and Ashok Singh and Balwan Singh in his presence.The witness furter stated that he reached the spot on hearing the shouts and by that time Ranjit Singh and Ashok Singh had also arrived there. Thereafter, other people also repaired to the place of occurrence to whom he told that the accused had killed Jai Singh deceased. The other eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW Ranjit Singh, who stated that he had gone to answer the call of nature in the morning and was washing himself and saw Kohli Ram, Nanak Chand and Brij Lal throwing Jai Singh on the ground and whereas other accused caught hold of Ashok Singh. He rushed to the place of occurrence. He rushed to the place of occurrence. He further stated that Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, accused, caught hold of Jai Singh and Brij Lal accused sat on his chest and hit him in the abdomen. He also heard the accused shouting that Jai Singh has died and let us move and thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence.According to this witness, there is a dispute between the parties over the land and are in litigation for so many years. He also identified the stone with which Brij Lal hit the deceased Jai Singh on his abdomen and caused his death when Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram held him by legs and arms. 8. There is uncontroverted evidence provided by ocular witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Rattan Singh, Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Bikhem Singh that on the alleged day of occurrence the accused trespassed into the land of the Complainant Ashok Singh where he had gone along with Jai Singh deceased in the morning to plough their field.These eye witnesses have fully corroborated about the manner in which occurrence took place and that how the accused Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram proceeded towards Jai Singh and remaining accused caught hold of Ashok Singh, Complainant.It is also apparent from the consistent and unimpeachable evidence that after throwing Jai Singh on the ground, accused Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram caught hold of the deceased Jai Singh from his legs and arms and Brij Lal sat on the chest of the deceased and hit with a stone on his abdomen, as result of which the deceased while being evacuated to hospital died on the way, whereas the other remaining accused assaulted the Complainant and caused him injuries.It is also in their evidence that the assailants, when found that Jai Singh has died and on seeing them on the place of occurrence, fled away from the spot.These witnesses have also identified the stone with which the accused Brij Lal had hit the deceased Jai Singh on his abdomen twice.The evidence provided by the eye witnesses is consistent, natural, straight-forward and positive.Nothing inherently improper or unnatural was trotted out in their pungent cross-examination to cast any speak of doubt in their veracity.Their evidence is reliable, credible, acceptgable and believable. 9. 9. It is pertinent to point out that the veracity of witnesses can be adjudged not only solely on the individual statement, but from, the testimony taken in conjuction with all other facts brought out in the course of their testimony.When the names of the eye witnesses are in the First Information Report, one would noramally expect their presence at the time of occurrence on spot.One would also expect that they had witnessed the manner in which the occorrence had taken palec.Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh, Rattan Singh and Ranjit Singh are the true eye witnesses of the occurrence and fully corroborated of what has been deposed by the Complainant Ashok Singh about the incident.Ashok Singh, Complainant, was also caused injuries by the assailants at the time of occurrence which stands fully proved by medical testimony.There is always a built-in assurance in the evidence provided by the injured witness as to its truthfulness and trustworthiness.The evidence of the eye witnesses is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases, the Court may, as a measure of caution, seek some conforming circumstances from some other sources.Ordinarily, the evidence of the truthful eye witnesses is sufficient, without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptable on the truthfulness of over over evidence such as recovery of weapons etc. at the instance of the accused by the Police. 10. at the instance of the accused by the Police. 10. While assessing and estimating the evidence of the eye witnesses, what is required of the Court to be done is that it must adhere to two true principals, namely, whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible for the eye witnesses to be present at the scene and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable.In other words, credibility of the witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has faired in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in other context of the case.On scrutiny, the evidence of PWs Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh, Rattan Singh and Ranjit Singh is found to be fully corroborating the Complainant, an injured person, Ashok Singh, on all material particulars.I find that they are consistent with one another so far as place of occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used by the accused person are concerned, and nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to impeach their testimony. The testimony of the ocular witnesses further finds corroboration in the medical testimony. According to the Complainant, another eye witness, the deceased had been struck with a stone on his abdomen by accused, Brij Lal.In the course of investigation, the Police seized the stone vide seizure memo EXPBS and identified by the witnesses, who happened to be there at the time of occurrence.This seizure memo has been proved in the evidence of PWs Ashok Singh, Budhi Singh and Jaswant Singh Katoch, who investigated the case.Now let us see whether the injuries found on the person of the deceased and also on the person of PW Ashok Singh, who was also accompanying him at the time of occurrence, were corroborated in the medical testimony.Dr.Jagdish Lal, who conducted the autopsy, has found the following injuries on the dead body : "1. An abrasion 2" x 1" in size situated on the right gluteal region. Internal Injuries: 1. Anterior portions of 10th and 11th ribs broken. Rest of the ribs were found normal. In abdomen the following fingins were noted. 1. partitonium pale but healthy. 2. An abrasion 2" x 1" in size situated on the right gluteal region. Internal Injuries: 1. Anterior portions of 10th and 11th ribs broken. Rest of the ribs were found normal. In abdomen the following fingins were noted. 1. partitonium pale but healthy. 2. peritonium cavity full of unclotted blood mostly in the right and left subphrenic space, dark red in colour, About 2 litres of blood was estimated some of which was taken out from the abdomenial cavity and thrown out. Spleen : Spleen size was approximately 6-1/2" x 4-1/2".There was a tear on its outer surface (3 and half inch x 2 inch approximately) placed in its long axis.The pulp of the spleen was sprouting out of its capouls.A pool of blood around the spleen was found present.Spleenish found obviously healthy." 11. In the opinion of the doctor, the death in this case has been caused due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of rupture of the spleen and an aberasion (2"-1" in size) situated on nthe right gluteal region, and autopsy report is under his hand writing and marked as EXPWJL. Dr.Jagdish Lal also opined that he had examined the weapon of offence (Stone) in connection with the post-mortem examination of Jai Singh deceased at the instance of the Police on 18-5-1987 at 2.00 p.m. and found that the injury is responsible for the death of the above said person mentioned in the post-mortem report and anterior portions of fractured 10th and 11th ribs could be responsible for the death of the deceased by the weapon (Stone) produced. The opinion of the doctor is marked as EXPWJL/2.Dr.Jagdish Lal also examined PW Ashok Singh, Complainant, with regard to the injuries stated to have been caused by the accused assailants at the time of occurrence and noted the following injuries : "(1) Bruise (1" x 1") on the posterior aspect of right elbow. (2) Swelling and tenderness 1" x 1" on the dorsal aspect of distal ends of third and fourth matacorpal bone. (3) Bruise 1" x 1" on the lateral aspect of right knee joint. (4) Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the anterior aspect of lower third of right leg." 12. (2) Swelling and tenderness 1" x 1" on the dorsal aspect of distal ends of third and fourth matacorpal bone. (3) Bruise 1" x 1" on the lateral aspect of right knee joint. (4) Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the anterior aspect of lower third of right leg." 12. In the opinion of the doctor, these injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt object and certificate issued to this effect bearing his signatures is EXPWJL/1.He further opined that these injuries are possible during scuffle.Doctor also identified the stone in the Court bearing his signatures and is marked as EXP-1.So, medical evidence is corroborated to what has been stated by the eye witnesses of the occurrence corroborating the testimony of the Complainant, Ashok Singh, with regard to the weapon of offence used by the accused in inflicting injury to the deceased on his abdomen. 13. The prosecution case further finds corroboration by the incriminating circumstance unfolded by the witnesses examined in the case.PW Budhi Singh stated that he had seen the deceased and Complainant in an injured condition when proceeded towards their land on hearing the shouts. According to him, Jai Singh was lying on the ground in precarious conditions when reached there.He further stated that Jai Singh, however, expired on the way while being evacuated to the hospital at Jourian.It is also in the evidence that the Police arrived at the place of occurrence and seized the stone on the same day and seizure memo EXPBS was prepared to this effect. The witness also identified the stone EXP-1. He, however, stated that PW Behari Singh is the brother of the deceased Jai Singh and PW Rattan Singh is the son of Bikehm Singh.He further certified that FIR was lodged by PW, Ashok Singh. The witness also identified the stone EXP-1. He, however, stated that PW Behari Singh is the brother of the deceased Jai Singh and PW Rattan Singh is the son of Bikehm Singh.He further certified that FIR was lodged by PW, Ashok Singh. Further the statement of PW, Behari Singh, is to the effect that when he was collecting the wheat waste on 18-5-1987 heard the noise and proceeded to the place of occurrence.He found Jai Singh lying on the ground when reached there.On enquiry from PW, Ashok Singh, the latter narrated the entire occurrence to him.It is also in his evidence that Ashok Singh was also injured at that time.Jai Singh deceased was unable to speak and the people who had gathered on spot brought a cot in order to remove him to the hospital, but Jai Singh died on the way.PW, Patwari Chander Mani also affirmed that the land where the occurrence took place was allotted to deceased Jai Singh and others as per records. He also proved Khasra Girdwari, marked as EXPCM/1. Whereas the statement of PW, Balwan Singh, is to the effect that at 6 a.m.on 18-5-1987 while he was crossing through court-yard of Kohli Ram accused for proceeding to the house of Charanjit for purchase of wheat crops waste, he found Brij Lal, Nanak Chand, Rattan Singh, Titru, Romesh Lal and Kohli Ram, accused, with children collected there.He further stated that he heard Nanak Chand accused saying that they will not allow the dispute to continue every day and also would not allow Jai Singh to plough the land. Either they will die or would kill. It is also in his evidence that the accused, many atimes, had earlier also fought with Jai Singh.On returning from the house of Charanjit, the witness stated to have heard the cries and found the people assembled on spot. He also repaired to the scene of occurrence and found Jai Singh lying on the ground.He also saw Gian Singh, Isher Singh and Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh and Ashok Singh son of Sansar Chand present there.He has also witnesses the seizure memos EXPWRS-1 and Supardnama EXPWRS3.In cross-examination, the witness categorically stated to have not told about it to anybody as none met him on the way. 14. 14. The investigation was conducted by PW, Jaswant Singh Katoch, and stated that on 18-5-1987, Ashok Singh in injured condition brought the dead body of Jai Singh to the Police Station.Madan Lal, Gian Singh and Behari Lal accompanied him at that time.The report of the occurrence was lodged by Ashok Singh son of Sansar Singh on the basis of which FIR was registered.The FIR was written by Head Constable Prem Nath on his dictation and proved in his evidence.The Investigating Officer is further stated to have got the autopsy of the dead body of Jai Singh done from hospital at Akhnoor. Seizure memo EXPAS pertaining to the dead body was prepared by him.He also proved the site plan of the occurrence EXPJS, injury statement EXPJS/1 and seizure memo EXPDH and the clothes of the deceased were seized vide seizure memo EXPBS-1 and proved seizure memos EXPBS, EXPRS-1, EXPRS-1 respectively and thereafter given on Supardnama of Isher Singh of EXPAS-3.He also got the weapon of offence (Stone) examined from the doctor.He also proved injury statement of PW Ashok Singh, Complainant, marked as EXPJS-4.He also recorded the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.PC and offence under Sections 302/147/148/149/447 RPC was established against the accused.The investigating Officer in his cross-examination unambiguously stated that he found that there were marks of struggle on the place of occurrence, which had not been ploughed at that time. 15. 15. Having failed to assail the crdibility of the wsitnesses, Mr.M.A.Bhat, learned counsel for the apellants, argued that the piquant feature significant in the FIR is that the deceased and the PW, Ashok Singh, were not present at the site of occurrence at the time of arrival of the accused there raising alarm and that the manner in which Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram assailed Jai Singh deceased and Brij Lal struck him with a stone on his abdomen after sitting on his chest and further the other accused have not caught hold of Ashok Singh and beaten him.Presence of Ashok Singh son of Gian Singh, Rattan Singh and Ranjit Singh on spot at the time of occurrence and the fleeing away of the accused after the incident by throwing the stone on spot, death of the deceased on the way to hospital, the registration of the FIR in the Police Station and the report lodged by Ashok Singh in injured condition, none of these facts have been challenged in the cross-examination.The defence could not eaxct any thing from the streamlined examination to challenge the presence of the eye witnesses on spot. 16. Defence failed to assail the credibility of the witnesses.Mr.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the accused further argued that PW, Ashok Singh, son of Sansar Singh being the real brother of the deceased and the other eye witnesses, namely, Rattan Singh, Ranjit Singh and remaining witnesses are interested witnesses, besides having close relationship with the deceased, whose evidence in the absence of independent corroboration should not be accepted.He also contended that their evidence smacks of partisanship and without further corroboration with independent testimony, cannot be formed the basis for the conviction.The evidence provided by the eye witnesses, if taken together in its cumulative, itself creates serious doubt about their presence on spot at the time of occurrence. 17. 17. It is settled proposition of law that related witnesses are not interested witnesses because as relations of the deceased, they would see the real culprit is brought to book.The relation cannot be party to anything by which the real culprit can escape.A similar proposition came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case: State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390, and held as under: "As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of :PW 1 on two grounds: 1.She was a `highly interested witness because she is the wife of the deceased." And 2. there were discrepancies in her evidence with respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid.For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness and was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who raw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an `interestd witness. She is related to the deceased. `Related is not equivalent to `interested A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.A witness who is natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be `interested. In the instant case PW-1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the respondents." 18. In the instant case PW-1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the respondents." 18. The proposition applies to the facts of this case with equal force.The apex court examined the point in length in case Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 S.C. 472: "Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness.The term `interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason.Such is not the case here.In the instant case there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that either Jaswant Kaur or Shiv Kaur bore any animus against the accused.This Court had an occasion to decide as to whether a relative could be treated as an interested witness.In Dalip Singh V. State of Punjab, 1954 SDR 1977 SC.31 ii C 15 145- (AIR 1953 S.C. 364) this court expressed its surprise over the impression with prevailed in the minds of the members of the bar that relative were not independent witnesses and in order to dispeal the same the qualities of independent witnesses were clearly elucidated.In this connection, Vivian Bose J. speaking for the Court observed as follows: We are unable to agree with the learned Judge of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye- witnesses requires corroboration.If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of such rule.If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur.This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Romeshwar v. The State of Rajasthan (1952) SCR 377 at p.399 : AIR 1952 SC 54 at page 59). We find however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgement of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel. 19. We find however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgement of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel. 19. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she srpings from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship for from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. 20. A similar view was taken in a later decisions of this Court in Masalti v. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133-(AIR 1965 SC 202) where this Court observed as follows: `But it would, we think, be unreasonable to content that evidence given by witness should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses...... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. In Guli Chands case AIR 1974 S.C. 276 (Supra) it was pointed out that normally close relative of the deceased would not be considered to be interested witness who would falsely mention the names of other persons as responsible for causing injuries to the deceased.Thus in this case also the court held that the witnesses concerned even though relatives could not be considered to be interested or partisan.Thus Court observed at page 702 thus: `It has been held by this Court that mere fact that a witness is relation of a victim is not sufficient to discard his testimony. To the same effect are the observations by this Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277-(AIR 1973 SC 2407)." 21. To the same effect are the observations by this Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277-(AIR 1973 SC 2407)." 21. So the evidence of the witnesses, much less eye witnesses and other witnesses, cannot be whittled down on the ground that the Complainant being the real brother of the deceased and, thus, is in close relationship of the deceased.Evidence of a related witness is more reliable because he will not be interested to implicate the innocent persons and allow the real culprit to escape.The FIR given by the Complainant, Ashok Singh, is in detail, giving names of the eye witnesses and narrated explicitly the manner in which the incident took place besides the acts of omission and commission of the accused.As a matter of fact, their presence on spot has not been challenged by the accused in their cross-examination. The statements of the eye witnesses that they accompanied the deceased to the police Station where the report was lodged, where never challenged in their cross-examination. The evidence given by the ocular witnesses in regard to the weapon used by Brij Lal, accused, in hitting the deceased with a stone, which he was carrying, on the abdomen while sitting on his chest was fully corroborated by the medical evidence particularly when the PW, Dr.Jagdish Lal, certified that the injury found on the deceased became the cause of his death, can be possible only with that weapon.Accused in their statements under Section 342 Cr.PC have simply denied the allegations and their involvement in the crime.No specific plea has been taken by the accused in their statements. The only plea taken by the accused in their statements is that the witnesses have rendered evidence against them on account of their dispute over a land.No witness was examined by the accused in their defence.So, this denial of certain facts, which remain unchallenged and uncorroborated sufficiently indicate the guilty mind about the only inference of their involvement in the crime can be drawn. 22. 22. Another circumstance against the accused from the evidence relates to the motive, which prompted the accused to commit the particular criminal act.There is an unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence that the deceased Jai Singh and his family were allotted a land, which was not taken by the accused in good taste.The accused used to threaten them either to leave the land or they would be killed, as is found in the evidence of the prosecution on record.It is also not in dispute that the litigation with regard to this land is going on between the parties at different forums since long.The relations between the appellants and the deceased were, thus, for from cordial. The appellants/accused wanted to forcibly usurp the land allotted to the deceased.All these facts and circumstances when taken together lead only to the conclusion that motive behind the occurrence was the land in dispute between the parties, which admittedly had been allotted to the deceased Jai Singh and was in his cultivation possession, and the accused wanted to usurp it forcibly and, thus, resulted into occurrence on the ill-fated day.This clearly shows that the accused were imbibed with a strong motive.Mr.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that previous history of dispute over a land between the parties, alleged by the prosecution, is not sufficient to prove the motive.Assuming but not admitting the argument put across by the appellant;s counsel to be correct, even then where the positive proff of motive only satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship, however, its existence only demands deeper forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient. 23. 23. After taking conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has weighed the evidence produced by the prosecution fairly, decided the character of the witnesses correctly and reached result rightly.I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the plea of the defence that the witnesses are interested and related to the deceased and do not inspire confidence.I am, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court and confirm the finding returned of the conviction and consequently the sentence awarded to the accused except the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the accused, Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, in proof of offence under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 RPC, which is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1, 000/- each in proof of offence under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 RPC and in case of default in payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment of three months.So far as sentence awarded to the accused is concerned, it is ordered that accused Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram have already undergone more than three and a half years imprisonment either under investigation, inquiry and trial and they shall, however, be entitled to remission of sentence already undergone.The accused are on bail and they should surrender their bail bonds to undergo the remaining sentence.Record shall be remitted back to the Trial Court forthwith. 22.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.