K. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16. 12. 1981 passed by Sri N. C. Jain, VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions trial No. 347 of 1980, convicting and sentencing the appellants Nanka and Nanhey under Section 302/34 I. P. C. for life imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded in the F. I. R. is that the deceased Bireshar Nath sharma was a school teacher in village Rampura. On the date of the incident i. e. 25. 10. 79, at about 8-00 A. M. he was going to school on a bicycle and when he reached near village Harela in front of Marhi, Vijayee and Nanhey armed with Gandasas and Nanka and Chaturi armed with kantas appeared from behind a mango tree. Vijayee exhorted his companions to kill the Master as he wanted to purchase the land of Lallu and helped their common enemy Bani Madhav, pradhan. On this, all the accused persons assaulted the deceased Bireshar Nath Sharma badly with their respective weapons. The deceased fell down on the ground. All this incident was seen by the complainant Ram Naresh Sharma (Sala of the deceased ). He was Head Constable in the police department in district (sic) and was resident of village Kajarauta. At that time, he happened to pass on a cycle on the same road after availing three days leave. He was going to join his duty. Munir was on the carrier of his cycle. When he raised alarm, Buddhoo Kahar and other pedestrians came running on the spot. Seeing them, the assailants ran away. The deceased died on the spot. The complainant Ram-Naresh Sharma P. W. 2. leaving the dead body in the custody of one Munir, Budhwa and others, went to lodge the written report at the Police Station. The F. I. R. was lodged at police station Fatehganj Purvi at 10-00 A. M. The police station was at the distance of three miles from the place of the occurrence. The case was investigated by P. W. ( 3 ) S. I. Bhagwan Singh, who immediately proceeded to the place of the occurrence on his motorcycle. The complainant also accompanied him. Three constables also followed them to the place of occurrence. The case was investigated by P. W. ( 3 ) S. I. Bhagwan Singh, who immediately proceeded to the place of the occurrence on his motorcycle. The complainant also accompanied him. Three constables also followed them to the place of occurrence. Before proceeding to the place of the occurrence, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant Ram Naresh Sharma. He found the dead body of the deceased on the spot. After completing the formalities, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. He took possession of the articles worn by the deceased. He took in possession his cycle. Two keys of the school were also taken in possession. He found blood near the dead body. He took samples of plain earth and blood stained earth. He prepared the site plan. On the same day at the place of the incident, he recorded the statement of Munir, Buddhoo and others. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was submitted against all the four accused persons but as the co-accused Vijayee and Chaturi were reported to be absconding, the trial proceeded only against the present two appellants. 3. The postmortem examination of the dead body of the Bireshar Nath Sharma was conducted by dr. P. K. Bass, P. W. 4 on 26. 10. 1979 at 12 O clock noon. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the (Rt.) side head 9 Cm above (Rt.) ear obliquly placed, underlying parietal bone cut. 2. Incised wound 6 Cm x 1 Cm x bone deep on the left side top of head 12 Cm above left ear, vertically, underlying occipital bone fractured. 3. Incised wound. 4 Cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side back of head just above injury No. (2)vertically placed, underlying bone fractured. ( 4 ) INCISED wound 10 cm x 1 cm bone deep transversely on left side face cutting the left ear in middle 2 an behind the outer left eyebrow. ( 5 ) INCISED wound 4 cm x 1 x bone deep on (Rt.) side face transversely cutting the (Rt.) upper lip and underlying maxillary bone. ( 4 ) INCISED wound 10 cm x 1 cm bone deep transversely on left side face cutting the left ear in middle 2 an behind the outer left eyebrow. ( 5 ) INCISED wound 4 cm x 1 x bone deep on (Rt.) side face transversely cutting the (Rt.) upper lip and underlying maxillary bone. ( 6 ) THREE Incised wounds transversely, parallely placed 28 cm x 8 cm x bone deep starting from left angle of mouth cutting lower lip, extending backward over back of neck and also involving (Rt.) side of neck, 5 cm behind the right ear, underlying large blood vessels cut, third cervical vertebrae cut through and through. The injuries are about 1/2 cm apart from each other. ( 7 ) INCISED wound 3 cm x 1 muscle deep on left side neck 4 cm below injury No. (6 ). ( 8 ) INCISED wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the top of left shoulder. ( 9 ) TWO abraded contusions in area 10 Cm. X 3 cm on (Rt.) side chest upper part just below (Rt.)clavicle. ( 10 ) INCISED wound 4 cm x 0. 4 Cm x muscle on (Rt.) side back lower part. ( 11 ) MULTIPLE linear incised wounds in area 25 cm x 16 cm x superficial skin on the outer aspect of left side abdomen and lower part chest, average size 10 cm long. ( 12 ) INCISED wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the back and outer aspect of (Lt.) wrist joint, underlying bone cut. ( 13 ) INCISED wound 3 cm x 0. 4 cm x muscle deep on the dorsum of (Rt.) hand. ( 14 ) ABRADED contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left knee joint. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C; they stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. 5. In order to prove this case, the prosecution examined two eyewitnesses namely P. W. 1 buddhoo and P. W. 2 Ram Naresh Sharma. All other witnesses examined at the trial were formal in nature. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found the case proved against the present appellants and convicted and sentenced then as above. 7. 5. In order to prove this case, the prosecution examined two eyewitnesses namely P. W. 1 buddhoo and P. W. 2 Ram Naresh Sharma. All other witnesses examined at the trial were formal in nature. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found the case proved against the present appellants and convicted and sentenced then as above. 7. None responded from the side of the appellants even at the revision of the list, though on record they are represented by Sri Satish Trivedi, Advocate. We have heard Sri Sudhir Kumar agarwal learned A. G. A. from the side of the State and propose to decide the appeal as provided by the Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1996 SC 2439 ). 8. The record is before us and we have carefully examined the evidence. 9. P. W. 1 Budhdhu deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 8 A. M. , he was going to village Harela from where he was to go to Karimpur. Munir and Ram Naresh on one cycle and deceased Pt. Bireshwar Nath Sharma on another were also going at some distance from one another. At that time, he was behind at a distance of 35 paces from Ram Naresh sharma. At that time, he heard the shout of Ram Naresh making an alarm. Chaturi and Nanka were armed with Kantas while Vijayee and Nanhey were armed with Gandasa. They all assaulted the deceased near Marhi situate on the way running north south. When Ram Naresh was making an alarm, he rushed up for help. When he reached near the deceased, he had already succumbed to, the injuries inflicted on him by the accused persons. Blood was oozing from his body. He and Munir remained near the dead body and Ram Naresh went to Police Station to lodge the written report of the incident. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer came at the place of occurrence at about 11 A. M. He also deposed that his father died during his childhood. He used to live at the house: of the deceased. Villagers also helped in his bringing up. He used to take care of the cattle of the deceased. He got the work of Khalasi in the Railways due to efforts of the brother of the deceased who was T. T. in the Railways. He used to live at the house: of the deceased. Villagers also helped in his bringing up. He used to take care of the cattle of the deceased. He got the work of Khalasi in the Railways due to efforts of the brother of the deceased who was T. T. in the Railways. He also deposed that on the date of incident he was going to purchase bush of the tap. 10. P. W. 2 Ram Naresh Sharma deposed in his evidence that deceased was his real brother-in-law. On the date of incident, after availing three days leave, he was going on a cycle to Shahjahanpur Bareilly road from where he was to board a bus for Budaun. Munir, resident of the same village, was also going on his cycle to bring back the same. The deceased was also going to his school at Rampuria on a cycle ahead of him at a distance of 10-15 steps. Vijayee and nanhey armed with Gandasas and Nanke and Chaturi armed with Kantas emerged from near the marhi and Nanhey held out that the deceased wanted to purchase the land of Lallu and he be killed. Then all the four accused persons began to assault the deceased with their respective weapons and caused injuries to him. He fell on the ground. When he (this witness) raised alarm, p. W. 1 Budhai also reached on the spot. On their challenge, the accused persons ran away with their weapons. Nearing the deceased, they found that he had succumbed to his injuries. They did not chase the accused persons us they were armed with weapons. He then wrote down the written report of the incident and went to lodge the same at the police station. He also stared that the accused Vijayee had illicit relations with the daughter-in-law of Lallu. Lallu wanted to sell his land and the deceased wanted to purchase the same. The father of this witness had litigation with accused Vijayee, Nanhe and Chaturi and the deceased had helped his father in the litigation. He further deposed that he first saw the accused persons from a distance of 15-20 steps. He also deposed that the deceased was 7-8 steps ahead of him. According to him, he first saw the accused persons at the pavement. He further deposed that he first saw the accused persons from a distance of 15-20 steps. He also deposed that the deceased was 7-8 steps ahead of him. According to him, he first saw the accused persons at the pavement. He denied the suggestion that the deceased used to go to school in early morning when there was still darkness. Though he admitted that there was no fixed time of his going to school and returning therefrom. He also refuted the suggestion that on the date of incident he had set out for the school in the early morning while it was darkness. 11. It was held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ) that close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness. Ordinarily, a close relative intends not to screen the real offender. Close relationship with the victim far from being a foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth. Relationship of witnesses with the deceased puts the court on guard to scrutinize their evidence. It was held in Shamubalu v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1976 SC 557 ) that if the evidence of an eyewitness is corroborated by medical evidence, he should not be disbelieved merely because he happened to be the brother of the deceased. In State of Punjab v. Hari Singh ( AIR 1974 SC 1168 )it was held that the mere fact that the witness is related to the victim is no ground for rejecting his testimony although it may be a ground for scrutinizing his evidence more critically and carefully where facts and circumstances disclose that only relations have been produced and other independent witnesses withheld. 12. Rejection of testimony as a whole on the ground of interestedness is improper. Relationship and interestedness is no ground for throwing the evidence. Court should only examine the evidence of such witness with caution. It is not the law that testimony of an interested witness is entitled to no weight; his evidence is only to be scrutinized with care. The fact that the witnesses are interested and are partisan witnesses by itself is no ground for rejection of their testimony. Court should only examine the evidence of such witness with caution. It is not the law that testimony of an interested witness is entitled to no weight; his evidence is only to be scrutinized with care. The fact that the witnesses are interested and are partisan witnesses by itself is no ground for rejection of their testimony. It was held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Ballabh Das ( AIR 1985 Sc 1384 ) that if the interested witness is found truthful, his evidence may be acted upon without corroboration. 13. It is wrong as a general proposition to discard a witness merely because be is interested. The evidence must be discarded or accepted on the merits of that evidence and not merely, because a man is interested. 14. Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor it is an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient in the circumstances of the particular case to b ( 15 ) IN the instant case, it is true that P. W. 1 Budhoo was associated with the deceased and P. W. 2 ram Naresh Sharma was his brother-in-law. But this alone does not justify the rejection of their evidence. We have, carefully examined the evidence of two eyewitnesses. Their evidence is trustworthy and can be safely relied on for recording the conviction of the appellants. They have given a consistent and coherent version about the incident and there is no inconsistency in their evidence. We do pot find anything to discard their evidence. Though their relationship with the deceased is not disputed, yet their evidence cannot be termed as partisan or actuated by malice against the accused appellants. ( 16 ) ON a close scrutiny of the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, we find that they have given sufficient and believable explanation in their evidence for their presence at the place of occurrence. Though their relationship with the deceased is not disputed, yet their evidence cannot be termed as partisan or actuated by malice against the accused appellants. ( 16 ) ON a close scrutiny of the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, we find that they have given sufficient and believable explanation in their evidence for their presence at the place of occurrence. P. W. 2 Rani Naresh Sharma deposed that after availing of the leave for three days, he was to join his duties on the date of incident and for that purpose, he was going to board a bus for reaching the place of his dudes. He had taken one Munir with him so that he could bring back the cycle. Therefore, his presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted. Similarly, P. W. 1 buddhoo stated in his evidence that he was going to take bush of the tap. Ram Naresh Sharma and the deceased were going on their cycles ahead of him. He saw the whole incident. ( 17 ) ANOTHER important factor in the case is that the medical evidence and ocular evidence corroborate one another. The deceased had sustained 14 injuries in all. Out of them 12 injuries were incised wounds. According to P. W. 4 Dr. P. K. Bass, all the incised injuries could be caused by a sharp edged weapons like Kanta and Gandasa. Two of the accused persons were armed with Kantas and the other two accused persons were armed with Gandasas. They all assaulted the deceased with their weapons. It would be recalled that the appellant Nanka wielded a Kanta and Nanhe wielded Gandasa to inflict injuries on the deceased. ( 18 ) THERE is no basis to hold on the basis of imagination that the deceased was murdered in the early hours while still it was darkness and no body had seen the incident. P. W. 4 Dr. P. K. Bass who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found 200 gms partially digested food material in the stomach of the deceased. The doctor deposed that food must have been taken 2-3 hours before death. The deceased was a teacher in village Rampuria which was situate at a distance of 10-15 kms from village Kajrauta. The doctor deposed that food must have been taken 2-3 hours before death. The deceased was a teacher in village Rampuria which was situate at a distance of 10-15 kms from village Kajrauta. The timing of the school was from 10 A. M. to 4 P. M. It was quite natural for the deceased to have taken some food before leaving for the school. ( 19 ) AS a result, we find that there is no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. Instead, they corroborate each other. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the two eyewitnesses produced at the trial were not independent, then also upon careful and cautious scrutiny of their evidence, we find that their evidence is trustworthy and reliable. ( 20 ) IN view of what has been discussed above, we find that the prosecution conclusively proved its case against the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC with sentence of life imprisonment is perfectly sustainable as they were sharing the common intention of one another. ( 21 ) WE, therefore, dismiss the appeal. The judgment is affirmed. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody immediately to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them. ( 22 ) THE judgment be certified to the court below. The CJM Bareilly shall report compliance within two months. . .