This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 21. 12. 2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Hailakandi, in Sessions Case No. 57/99. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20. 4. 98 at about 10. 00 AM. the deceased Abdul Sahid was called up by his brother to attend a Bichar at his place and accordingly, Abdul Sahid went there. After sometime, the family members heard the shout from Abdul Sahid and they rushed to the place of occurrence. It may be mentionedhere that the house of the accused person and the deceased are situated nearby. When the wife and sons of the deceased reached the place of occurrence, they saw the accused person assaulting their father and when they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Afterwards, Abdul Sahid was removed to hospital but he succumbed to the injuries before reaching the hospital. 3. P. W. -6 is Dr. Dulal Mukherjee, who held the post mortem over the dead body and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased. "(1) one penetrating wound on the -right side of forehead about one inch above the right eyebrow at the level of right eye. Size-1" x y2 x whole thickness of the skull bones menages and superficial part of the brain matter with laceration of meaninges and brain matter. The injury was grievous in nature, fresh and caused by sharp pointed object. (2) One penetrating wound on the lower eyelid, size 1 inch x 3/4 inch x l/2 inch with fracture of socket of the eye-bone. The injury was grievous, fresh and caused by sharp pointed object. (3) One incised wound on the left loin obliquely placed. Size 2 inch x3/4 inch 1/4 inch. Runned superficially under the skin. The injury was fresh, simple and caused by sharp cutting object. (4) One penetrating injury on the upper part of left side of abdomen. Size 1 inch xy2 inch x whole thickness of abdomen Pierced and reached up to the base of heart penetrating the left ventricle of heart. A pool of blood collected in the thoracic cavity. The injury was fresh, simple and caused by sharp cutting object. " 4. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. A pool of blood collected in the thoracic cavity. The injury was fresh, simple and caused by sharp cutting object. " 4. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. In this case, we find that there was no cross examination of the Doctor and the death of the deceased as a result of the injuries sustained by him is also not seriously disputed. P. W. -l is the informant and wife of the deceased. She had also followed her two sons, namely, Sarifuddinand Tajuddin, PW. -2 and P. W. -4 respectively and reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shout for help and found the accused persons assaulting the deceased. It may be mentioned here that in this case the charge was framed against, as many as, five accused persons and the trial proceeded against all of them. However, on conclusion of the trial, the accused Zakir, Kamrul and Nurul were discharged and the trial court convicted Salimuddin and Tajuddin @ Babul under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to, further imprisonment for 3 months. The two accused appellants were also convicted under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to, further imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 5. The wife and the two sons of the deceased have categorically stated in the evidence that the deceased was assaulted by the two appellants, namely, Salimuddin, and Tajuddin @ Babul, with a dagger. The accused persons were known and the witnesses also stated that while going to the place of occurrence they had carried torchlight with them and they saw the incident in the focus of the said torchlight and the incident had taken place made the compound of the brother of the deceased. We have perused the evidence on record and found that the three eye witnesses were cross examined at length but the defence failed to bring out any material contradictions, discrepancies or inconsistencies in their evidences. They have corroborated each other on material points and the evidence stands fully supported by the medical evidence on record. 6. Abdul Samad Barbhuiyan, P. W. -3. They have corroborated each other on material points and the evidence stands fully supported by the medical evidence on record. 6. Abdul Samad Barbhuiyan, P. W. -3. , is the brother of the deceased and he also came to the place of occurrence on hearing shouts for help and saw the two appellants, before us, assaulting the deceased with a dagger. The witness further states that when P. W. -2 and P. W. --4 tried to save their later, they were also assaulted by the two accused appellants. P. W. -5 is Dr. Debabrata Singh, who had examined P. W. -2 and P. W. -4 at Silchar Medical College and found the following injuries on their person: "(1) Sharp edged penetrating wound Rt. Upper abdomen 1 "x ½ x 2" (approx) with penetrating of the peruorsum. Sharp penetration of the anterior wall of the stomach ½” x ½” x ½”. Fresh blood and stomach content present in the peritomal cavity. Active Bleeding present. Patient operated and recovered. In my opinion injury occurred by sharp pointed weapon. The nature of injury is grievous and fresh. Ext. 1 is the Medical report and Ext. 1( 1) is my signature. On the same day and time, I examined Sarifuddin Barbhuiya S/o. Abdul Sahid escorted by H/C A. Deb and found the following injuries : (1) Sharp edged penetrating wound over right posterior chest wall 8th intercoastals space 1” x ½” penetrating pleural cavity and diaphragm into the peritoneal cavity with pnsumo peritonzum and surgical emphysema present. Acgie bleeding present. Recovered with conservation treatment. In my opinion type of weapon is sharp and nature of injury is grievous and fresh. " 7. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and grievous in nature. Thus, the oral testimony of the eye witnesses that the accused appellants also caused injuries to P. W. -2 and P. W-4 stands fully supported by the medical evidence on record and the medical evidence, therefore, lend support to the claim of the witnesses that they were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and that they also sustained injuries. 8. P. W.-7 is the Investigating Police Officer and he has deposed that on being led by accused appellant Tajuddin he had seized the weapon of assault, i.e. one dagger, 14" long with wooden handle. 8. P. W.-7 is the Investigating Police Officer and he has deposed that on being led by accused appellant Tajuddin he had seized the weapon of assault, i.e. one dagger, 14" long with wooden handle. The said dagger was kept underground beneath a banana tree and it was shown by accused Tajuddin. Thus, this is a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the material Ext. 1, the dagger, was produced before the Court. Admittedly, no statement of the accused was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but the law is well settled that Section 27 does not require recording of statement and it may be oral information, as held by this Court in the case of AIfas Munda Vs. State of Assam, 1996 (3) GIT 568 (D.B.). Except giving a suggestion, the evidence of the Investigating Officer oh this point stands well established. The weapon of assault was also produced before the Court and marked as Material Ext. 1. 9. In this case, we find that the incident, as such, is not disputed. The accused appellant, Saiimuddin Barbhuiyan, in his deposition under Section 313 Cr. PC. has admitted the incident but claimed that it was the deceased and his other family members, including P. W 2 and P.W-4, who tried to assault him and he was saved by Kamrul, Zakir and Nurul, otherwise, he would have been killed by the oilier side. The other accused Tajuddin, however, has taken a plea of complete innocence. The trial court has considered the evidence of the four eye witnesses in great detail. 10. In this case, the accused Saiimuddin claims that in the above incident he has sustained injuries but there was no oral or medical evidence in support of the above plea. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, AIR 2001 SC 2328 , we hold that the defence is not entitled to any benefit on that count. The appellants have challenged the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they are the interested witnesses, being the wife, son and brother of the deceased. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, AIR 2001 SC 2328 , we hold that the defence is not entitled to any benefit on that count. The appellants have challenged the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they are the interested witnesses, being the wife, son and brother of the deceased. Although they can be said to be interested but the incident had taken place at night near their residence and hence they will be the first person to rush to the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts for help of the deceased. The defence has raised objection regarding the non examination of some other persons who were allegedly present in the house of the accused Saiimuddin. The father-in-law of the accused persons had called the deceased to their place and he was assaulted by them. The other persons did not participate in the assault. They admittedly belonged to the defence group and for their non-examination, no fault can be found with the prosecution. In this case, we find that the motive for killing the deceased is that the accused Saiimuddin suspected the deceased's involvement in the matter of his wife deserting his company. The deceased was called to explain his conduct in the matter and thereafter, he was assaulted and killed and when his two sons tried to intervene, they were also assaulted., The law is well settled that motive is immaterial when there is direct evidence but in the present case, we find that the motive has been established. As regards the allegation of related witnesses, in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Saman Das, AIR 1972 SC 67, the Apex Court held: "Relationship of the prosecution witness to the deceased, itself is not sufficient for disbelieving his testimony unless the motive is alleged and proved'against them to spare the real assailant it is well known that the close relative of a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant falsely involve another person in place of the assailants and when there is no cogent evidence on the record to show that any of the witnesses had any animus against the accused. " 11. In a recent case, State of U. P. Vs. " 11. In a recent case, State of U. P. Vs. Binode Kumar, 1992 Crl L. J. 1115, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated its earlier observation in the following words: "Mere interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding rejecting the sworn testimony and nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction. What all that is necessary is that the evidence of interested or related witnesses should be subjected to a very careful scrutiny with extreme care and caution and if on such scrutiny the testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable then that evidence maybe relied upon in the circumstances of the particular case to base a conviction thereon. " 12. So far the minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye witnesses is concerned, these are the natural fall out when the witnesses depose after long gap and these are immaterial and they do not go at the root of the case. We find that the prosecution evidence is convincing, true and reliable and the learned Sessions Judge rightly relied on the same. The evidence against the two accused appellants are overwhelming and the guilt has been well established. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the appeal stands dismissed.