JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Appellant Kutti alias Mankam stands convicted for offences punishable under sections 327, 304 part-II and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and S.I. for six months, respectively and appellant Dharmu Choudhary stands convicted for offences punishable under sections 327, 304 Part-II/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and S.I. for six months, respectively, vide impugned judgment and order dated 11-1-2002 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 211/2000. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. Deceased Pradeep Kumar Gupta and his brothers Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) were the vegetable vendors. On 12-1-2000 at about 10.00 P.M. deceased Pradeep Kumar Gupta was selling vegetables at his shop on the side of the road. Adjacent to his shop, his brothers Ravi Shanker Gupta and Prashant Kumar Gupta were also selling vegetables. Other vegetable vendors were also there selling vegetables in their respective shops. Pradeep Kumar Gupta went to a tea shop to take tea. Both the appellants and one Naitik Kori, who is an absconding accused, also came to the tea shop. The accused persons demanded money from Pradeep Kumar Gupta to purchase liquor. He refused to give money stating that he was a poor person and could not afford to give money, whereupon the accused persons started abusing him and insisted for money. As he did not succumb to the demand, appellant Kutti took out a knife from his pant and dealt a knife blow on his left buttock. He fell down on the ground. Blood was oozing profusely from his wound. When Ravi Shanker Gupta, the brother of deceased rushed to save him, appellant Dharmu Choudhary exhorted appellant Kutti to assault him also. Appellant Dharmu snatched the knife from Kutti and dealt a knife blow to Ravi Shanker which he undertook on his palm. The third accused Naitik Kori threw a brick on Ravi Shanker. On hearing cries of Ravi Shanker, his brother Prashant reached the spot. Meanwhile, the accused persons took to their heels. Appellant Dharmu snatched the knife from Kutti and dealt a knife blow to Ravi Shanker which he undertook on his palm. The third accused Naitik Kori threw a brick on Ravi Shanker. On hearing cries of Ravi Shanker, his brother Prashant reached the spot. Meanwhile, the accused persons took to their heels. Ravi Shanker Gupta, with the help of some other persons took Pradeep Kumar Gupta to Victoria Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. Ravi Shanker lodged F.I.R. at the police station. Blood stained earth and plain earth was recovered from the spot. Inquest on the body of deceased Pradeep Kumar Gupta was performed by inspector, R.S. Kalra (PW-16). The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. D.K. Shakalya (PW-13) performed the post mortem examination on the body of deceased Pradeep Kumar Gupta and found a stab wound on the upper lateral aspect of left thigh 5" below posterior iliac measuring 1" x 1/2" x 7". In the track femoral artery and veins were cut. Dr. Shakalya opined that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to femoral blood veins. Dr. Shakalya also opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature. He also opined that the death was homicidal. Ex. P-22 is the report of Dr. Shakalya. Injured Ravi Shanker Gupta was also sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. M.K. Choudhary (PW-12) who found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Contusion on the left temporal region 11/2" x 1". (2) Contusion on the left lumber region 3" x 2". Dr. Choudhary opined that the injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt object. Ex. P-20 is the report of Dr. Choudhary (PW-12). After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the accused persons. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge against appellant Kutti for the offences punishable under sections 327, 302, in the alternative, under sections 302/34, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge for the offences punishable under sections 327, 302/34 and 307 in the alternative u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against appellant Dharmu and accused Naitik Kori. Accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed trial of the case. After concluding the trial learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. A charge for the offences punishable under sections 327, 302/34 and 307 in the alternative u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against appellant Dharmu and accused Naitik Kori. Accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed trial of the case. After concluding the trial learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. During the course of trial accused Naitik Kori absconded, therefore, the trial Court could not conclude trial against him. I have heard Shri U.N. Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants and Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State and perused the record of the trial Court. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants led me through the record and contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding the appellants guilty of the offences charged. He submitted that the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is improper and illegal. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has supported the impugned judgment and order recorded by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. I shall first consider as to whether the death of Pradeep Kumar Gupta was homicidal? Sub Inspector, R.S. Kalra (PW-16) has stated that he conducted the inquest on the body of Pradeep Kumar Gupta and prepared panchnama thereof, Ex. P-4. Dr. D.K. Shakalya (PW-13) has stated that he conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, Pradeep Kumar Gupta and found a stab wound as described above. He has opined that the death of Pradeep Kumar was homicidal. He has also opined that the cause of death of deceased was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to femoral blood veins. Ex. P-22 is the report of Dr. Shakalya. There is nothing in the cross examination of Dr. Shakalya to disbelieve his testimony. This fact was not very seriously disputed before the trial Court. In this appeal also the learned counsel for the appellants has not very seriously disputed this fact. Therefore, I confirm the finding of the trial Court on this count. This brings me to the crucial question as to whether the appellants caused the death of Pradeep Kumar Gupta? This fact was not very seriously disputed before the trial Court. In this appeal also the learned counsel for the appellants has not very seriously disputed this fact. Therefore, I confirm the finding of the trial Court on this count. This brings me to the crucial question as to whether the appellants caused the death of Pradeep Kumar Gupta? Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) have stated that when deceased Pramod Kumar Gupta had gone to the tea stall of Narayan to take tea, appellants and other accused came there and demanded money to purchase liquor. The deceased told them that he was a poor man and could not afford to give money, whereupon, accused persons insisted for the money and started abusing the deceased. Appellant Dharmu and co-accused, Naitik caught hold of him and appellant Kutti dealt a knife blow on the left buttock as a result of which he fell down. When Ravi Shanker reached the spot, appellant snatched the knife from Kutti and tried to deal a knife blow to Ravi Shanker, who caught the knife whereupon, co-accused Naitik threw a brick on Ravi Shanker as a result of which Ravi Shanker suffered injuries. Other eye witnesses of the incident namely, Santosh Kumar Gupta (PW-5), Narayan Prasad (PW-7), Mahesh (PW-8), Pappu alias Ashok Kumar Dubey (PW-9) and Lalman Gupta (PW-10) have not supported the prosecution case. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) are none else than the brother of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses and the conviction of the appellants cannot sustain on their evidence. When the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge committed manifest error in relying the testimony of the interested witnesses. It is difficult to accept the plea that if the witnesses are shown to be the relatives of the deceased, their evidence can never be accepted. The proposition that when the eye witnesses to the occurrence are interested persons, there should be corroboration of their evidence by independent witnesses cannot be of universal application. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little more care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth, such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. Ravi Shankar Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) were also selling vegetables adjacent to the shop of the deceased, therefore, their presence at the spot is not unnatural, more so, when Ravi Shanker also sustained injuries in the occurrence. The trial Court very carefully assessed the evidence of these witnesses and did not find any reason to disbelieve their testimony, therefore, the mere fact that the witnesses are the brothers of the deceased cannot persuade this Court to reject the prosecution case on that ground alone. There is no reason why the brother of the deceased would exculpate the real accused and implicate the appellants. They would not unnecessarily incur the wrath of the accused persons and their enmity attendant with risk to themselves by falsely implicating them. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are material contradictions between the statements of these witnesses recorded during the trial and their statements u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the police during investigation. The only discrepancy brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that while deposing before the trial Court these witnesses have stated that appellant Dharmu and co-accused Naitik caught hold of the deceased when appellant Kutti was assaulting him. It is not a material contradiction. Even if this part of the evidence is discarded, it will not make much difference. From these circumstances and material available on record, it is quite clear that appellant Dharmu also shares the intention with appellant Kutti and participated in the crime. Even if the deceased was not caught hold of by appellant Dharmu he cannot escape his liability. Even if this part of the evidence is discarded, it will not make much difference. From these circumstances and material available on record, it is quite clear that appellant Dharmu also shares the intention with appellant Kutti and participated in the crime. Even if the deceased was not caught hold of by appellant Dharmu he cannot escape his liability. The evidence of Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) is uniform and consistent with the attending circumstances. It is not explicable as to who reached at the scene of occurrence first. There was no previous enmity between the deceased or his brothers on one side and the accused persons on the other. The evidence of the brothers of the deceased is also corroborated by medical evidence. Their evidence is reliable and inspire confidence. The trial Court committed no error in relying upon the evidence of Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) From the evidence of Dr. D.K. Shakalya (PW-13) it is clear that depth of the wound was 7" and due to the injury caused on the thigh of the deceased the femoral veins were cut. He has also stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature and that the death of Pradeep Kumar Gupta was homicidal. In view of the medical evidence, the trial Court rightly found the appellant Kutti guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) and Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) to the effect that the appellants voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased for the purpose of extorting money from him also inspires confidence and the trial Court rightly believed their evidence. According to Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW1) the accused persons assaulted him during the incident. Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) has also stated that Ravi Shanker was assaulted by the accused persons. Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) has specifically stated that a brick was thrown on him. His evidence is supported by medical evidence also. According to Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW1) the accused persons assaulted him during the incident. Prashant Kumar Gupta (PW-2) has also stated that Ravi Shanker was assaulted by the accused persons. Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) has specifically stated that a brick was thrown on him. His evidence is supported by medical evidence also. Though Ravi Shanker Gupta (PW-1) has stated that it was absconding accused Naitik Kori who had thrown a brick on him but since the act was done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused persons, both the appellants are also responsible for the injury in view of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence in details. The findings of the trial Court are based on cogent reasons. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the trial Court on each count. So far as the sentences imposed upon the appellant are concerned, they also cannot be said to be harsh or unjust in any manner. The appellants acted in the highhanded manner. They ended life of a young man simply because he had refused to succumb to the unjust demand of the appellants to pay the money for liquor. Therefore, no interference in the sentences is called for. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants as indicated above is hereby maintained. Final Result : Dismissed