Judgment N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Pappu Gutiya has been convicted alongwith his wife Smt. Kali Santo Devi on the charge of murder of his brother Jagmal. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302/34 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story as disclosed during the trial is that in the locality 3 FDM two brothers namely Pappu Gutiya and Jagmal used to reside. Their married sister PW-l Smt. Kali alongwith her husband and daughters was also residing in the same locality. The factual scenario as disclosed during the trial is that in the afternoon of 22/6/1997, the appellant Pappu Gutiya was seen unloading bricks and sand from the camel cart of Rajpal. At about 8. 30 PM both the brothers i. e. deceased Jagmal and appellant Pappu Gutiya alongwith Rajpal, after consuming liquor and taking dinner, entered into quarrel. Rajpalleft the place with his camel cart. It is alleged that appellant Kali Santo also joined Pappu Gutiya in assaulting deceased Jagmal. The cries of Jagmal attracted his sister PW-1 Kali and her daughters PW-3 Savitri. Shimla and Ramgiri. When they tried to intervene, Pappu Gutiya made an attempt to assault them by Sela. Jagmal was killed by Pappu and his wife at about 10:00 PM. Oral First Information Report of this incident was lodged by Smt. Kali w /0 Dabbu at police station Suratgarh on 23/06/1997 at about 11:00 A. M. The police registered the case and proceeded the investigation. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against both the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined eight witnesses and produced certain documents. Appellants denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Accused persons examined DW-1 Samniya. DW2 Bachan Singh and DW 3 Saldera Khan. The trial court found the charges proved against the appellants and as such convicted and sentenced them as stated above. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the conviction, it is contended, by Mr. H. S. S. Kharlia that conviction of the appellants solely on the testimony of highly interested witnesses namely PW-l Kali and her daughter PW-3 Savitri is not sustainable. The trial court found the charges proved against the appellants and as such convicted and sentenced them as stated above. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the conviction, it is contended, by Mr. H. S. S. Kharlia that conviction of the appellants solely on the testimony of highly interested witnesses namely PW-l Kali and her daughter PW-3 Savitri is not sustainable. Before we avert to the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, we may refer the medical evidence, though that defence has not disputed the homicidal death of deceased Jagmal. PW-5 Dr. Vijay Prakash Beniwal stated that on 23/06/1997, he conducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased. Jagmal vide post-mortem report Exhibit P-8. He noticed following injuries on his person1. Lacerated 3 x 1 x 1 cm on left leg on lower 1/3 anteriorly wounded. 2. Incised wound 12 x 3 x 2 cm on middle 1/3 of left leg antrolaterally simple sharp. 3. Lacerated wound 3 x 1 x 0. 5 cm on left leg upper 1/3 anteriorly. 4. Lacerated wound 1 x 1 x 0. 5 cm on left leg anteriorly upper 1/3. 5. Incised wound 6 x 2 x 1 cm on middle 1/3 of right leg anteriorly. 6. Incised wound 1 x 1 x 1 cm on right leg middle 1/3 anteriorly. 7. Incised wound 2 x 1 x 0. 5 cm on right leg upper 1/3 anteriorly. 8. Incised wound with open fracture of right tibia 3 x 1 x bone deep On anteriomedial aspect of right leg upper 1/3 = Grievous sharp. 9. Bruise 22 x 4 cm on left half of chest and abdomen. 10. Bruise 18 x 4 cm on lateral aspect chest on left side anteriolaterally. TI In his opinion, the deceased Jagmal died of haemorrhagic shock as a result of splenic injury and other injuries of body. He has stated that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross examination, he admitted that five injuries were caused by blunt object and five by sharp edged weapon. ( 5 ) PW-1 Smt. Kali is sister of deceased Jagmal and appellant Pappu Gutiya. She has stated that she was residing near the house of his brother Jagmal and Pappu. She stated that in the afternoon of 22/06/1997 Pappu Gutiya was unloading bricks and sand from the camel cart of Rajpal in front of her house. ( 5 ) PW-1 Smt. Kali is sister of deceased Jagmal and appellant Pappu Gutiya. She has stated that she was residing near the house of his brother Jagmal and Pappu. She stated that in the afternoon of 22/06/1997 Pappu Gutiya was unloading bricks and sand from the camel cart of Rajpal in front of her house. Appellant Pappu brought three bottles of liquor. At about 8:00 PM, appellant Pappu Gutiya, Rajpal and deceased Jagmal consumed liquor. Thereafter, they entered into quarrel. The wife of Gutiya, namely Mst. Kali also joined the quarrel. On hearing the cries of Jagmal she alongwith her daughter PW-3 Savitri, Rajgiri and Shimla reached on the spot. On their intervention, the accused persons ran before them armed with Barchha, She returned back to her house and witnessed the incident. Appellant Gutiya and his wife gave severe beating to Jagmal. Jagrhal was killed at about 3:00 AM. She had witnessed the incident from hert house. On the next day, she lodged the First Information Report of the incident at Police Station, Suratgarh vide Exhibit P-1. She also stated that the dead body of Jagmal was covered by sand. It was further stated that deceased Jagmal was tied by rope and hanged in the hut. She further stated that appellant Pappu Gutiya was armed With Barchhat and his wife was carrying Chhurat with her. She further stated that they were having Ghotat (a piece of wood) with them. In the cross examination, she admitted that some cases of theft were registered against her brother deceased Jagmal. She, however, pleaded ignorance about the number of cases of theft against him. She stated that deceased Jagmal had given information to the police about the theft of sheep committed by the appellant Gutiya. This was reason of quarrel between them. ( 6 ) PW-3 Savitri the daughter of PW -1 Smt. Kali has stated that she had witnessed Rajpal. Pappu and Jagmal consuming liquor from her house. After consuming liquor they took dinner. Thereafter, a quarrel took place between Pappu and Jagmal. She has also stated that accused Pappu had hanged deceased Jagmal from the ceiling of hut. She further stated that the wife of Pappu Smt. Kali was also beating, Jagmal. On hearing the cries of Jagmal, she alongwith her mother other sister and father went to the spot. They intervened, but did not succeed in rescuing Jagmal. She has also stated that accused Pappu had hanged deceased Jagmal from the ceiling of hut. She further stated that the wife of Pappu Smt. Kali was also beating, Jagmal. On hearing the cries of Jagmal, she alongwith her mother other sister and father went to the spot. They intervened, but did not succeed in rescuing Jagmal. Her father left towards field. After killing Jagmal both the accused persons downed the dead body of Jagmal in sand. In the cross examination she denied the suggestion that on the date of incident she had gone to Punjab and as such has not witnessed the incident. ( 7 ) PW-4 Dabburam is husband of PW - 1 Smt. Kali. His statement is almost in the line of PW -1 Smt. Kali and PW -3 Savitri. Nothing substantial has been elicited from his cross examination. ( 8 ) PW-8 Virendra Singh Jakhar. S. H. O. Police Station, Suratgarh stated that he had investigated the site and seized a piece of rope from the spot. He arrested the accused persons on 24/06/1997. While in custody, the appellant Pappu Gutiya gave him information leading to the recovery of Sela. There were signs of removing blood from the weapon. In pursuance of the information given by Mst. Kali a Chhurat was recovered. There was blood spot on Chhura. The evidence of recovery is not incriminating in the instant case as the articles were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Thus, the entire case rests on the testimony of eyewitnesses referred to above. ( 9 ) THE main criticism of the evidence of three eyewitnesses is that the version given by them is unnatural. A serious criticism has been made to the evidence of PW 4 Dabburam husband of PW-l Smt. Kali. Certain oontradictions have been pointed out with respect to his presence at the time of lodging of First Information Report. It is also submitted that the story of hanging the deceased Jagmal with rope does not inspire confidence. On careful scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any serious infirmity in the statements of eyewitnesses. As far as the statements of PW-l Kali and PW-3 Savitri are concerned, they are natural witnesses. It is not in dispute that they live in the same locality. On careful scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any serious infirmity in the statements of eyewitnesses. As far as the statements of PW-l Kali and PW-3 Savitri are concerned, they are natural witnesses. It is not in dispute that they live in the same locality. It is well settled that evidence of witnesses of occurrence cannot be thrown out merely because they are interested parties and witnesses. It is well settled that testimony of witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground of their kinship with the deceased victim. In fact, it is difficult to conceive that PW -1 Kali, who is the sister of the appellant and the deceased will give a statement to falsely implicate his own brother and his wife. On the close examination of both the witnesses, namely I PW -1 Kali and PW -3 Savitri corroborated by the medical evidence and applying the normal rule of prudence. we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that it is safe to act on the testimony of both the eyewitnesses. The trial court was right in its conclusion that prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded against the appellants. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellants are in jail they will serve out remaining part of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.