JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.10.02 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Sessions Trial No. 19(NT/K) of 2002 convicting the Appellants herein Pabitra Dey, Parimal Dey, Niresh Malakar, Subodh Malakar and Rabi Malakar under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for two years more. They have also been sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment under Section 148 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently. There is a further direction to pay 50 percent of the fine money, if realized, to the wife of the deceased Sisir Ranjan Chowdhury if she is alive or in the event of her death to the next kin of the deceased. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The prosecution version in brief is that on 09.09.99 at about 10.30 a.m., deceased Sisir Ranjan Chowdhury went to a marshy land adjacent to his house on the south. He was an old man living with his wife, son, daughters and grand children. The marshy land known as 'doba land' was in his possession for a long period and he erected temporary bamboo fencing around the same. On the fateful day and the time aforementioned, he saw five Appellants Pabitra Dey, Parimal Dey, Niresh Malakar, Subodh Malakar, Rabi Malakar and another Pranay Dey (absconder) removing his boundary fencing around the doba land. They were armed with lathi and spade. Sisir Ranjan objected to their said action. Instantly he was attacked and beaten by lathi and spade by the said assailants causing severe head injuries. He lost senses. His daughter Smt. Runu Bala Dey (P.W. 1), daughter-in-law Smt. Sumati Dhar (P.W. 5) and grand daughter Smt. Suparna Dhar (P.W. 3) rushed to the place of occurrence to witness the assault whereby Sisir Ranjan was done to death by the said assailants. The occurrence attracted other persons also with whose help the injured was taken to the hospital where he breathed his last at 9 p.m. within a period of 12 hours. 4. The occurrence attracted other persons also with whose help the injured was taken to the hospital where he breathed his last at 9 p.m. within a period of 12 hours. 4. Runu Bala Dey (P.W. 1) lodged the complaint on the same day immediately after the occurrence following which a criminal investigation was put on place by the Fatikroy Police Station. Sometime after lodging of the FIR which was registered under Section 148/149/326/307 IPC, Sisir Ranjan succumbed to the injuries and thus the investigation entered into the phase of murder. All the six assailants were named in the FIR which was written by Suparna Dhar (P.W. 3), the grand daughter. The post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased which was done by P.W. 6 indicated that the cause of the death was due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of cebru vascular accident along with head injury. According to the prosecution, the assailants had left the place of occurrence immediately after the assault and took with them the spade which was the weapon of offence causing head injury which proved fatal. The investigation which ended in a formal chargesheet against the Appellants and the absconder was followed by a full dressed trial during which prosecution examined 7 witnesses and defence examined two witnesses. Seizure list, Inquest report, Post mortem report, hand-sketch map and dead body challan were the documents relied on by the prosecution. Mainly placing reliance on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, Runu Bala Dey (P.W. 1), Nilmani Sarkar (P.W. 2) and Suparna Dhar (P.W. 3), the learned Trial Court came to hold that the Appellants actuated by a common object formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of Sisir Ranjan. An argument was placed on behalf of the Appellants herein before the learned trial Court that though the records would show that immediately after the occurrence, a large number of people had gathered at the place of occurrence, but none of those witnesses was placed before the witness box to support the prosecution case against the Appellants. This argument was, however, nullified for the reason that the actual commission of the offence was witnessed only by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and others had gathered there only after the assailants had left the place of occurrence. This argument was, however, nullified for the reason that the actual commission of the offence was witnessed only by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and others had gathered there only after the assailants had left the place of occurrence. The quality not the quantity of evidence or number of witnesses being relevant in a criminal trial and the prosecution being at liberty to produce only those witnesses who are considered by them relevant, non-examination of others does not in any way affect the credibility of the prosecution case. That apart, if there was really any other eye-witness to tell a different story consistent with innocence of the Appellants, the defence was always at liberty to call them into the witness box. After choosing not to do so the Appellants cannot take a plea of being prejudiced for non-examination of more witnesses. 5. The eye-witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution has built its case may be briefly noticed. The occurrence had taken place adjacent to the house of the deceased towards south where a marshy land in possession of the deceased was situated. It was morning on 09.09.99 when a sudden attack on his own land from the Appellants put Sisir Ranjan to death. In such a situation, particularly having regard to the place of occurrence which is in close proximity to the house of the deceased, the inmates of his house must be the natural witnesses. Smt. Runu Bala Dey (P.W. 1) who is the daughter of the deceased was living with her father. According to her, the doba land was within the possession of her father. At the time of occurrence, the Appellants were found removing the fencing of her father which naturally invited objection from him and apparently the dispute over the suit land motivated the Appellants to assault the deceased. She is the informant who specifically named the assailants in her FIR all of whom being neighbours were closely known to her the occurrence having taken place in brought day light, she could see the assailants armed with lathi and spade hitting her father. Her sister-in-law Smt. Sumati Dhar (P.W. 5) and her brother's daughter Smt. Suparna Dhar (P.W. 3) were in the house who accompanied her. Nilmani Sarkar (P.W. 2) was at that time working in the house of the deceased. Her sister-in-law Smt. Sumati Dhar (P.W. 5) and her brother's daughter Smt. Suparna Dhar (P.W. 3) were in the house who accompanied her. Nilmani Sarkar (P.W. 2) was at that time working in the house of the deceased. He also at once rushed to the place of occurrence to see how the deceased was done to death. According to P.W. 1, other persons who assembled there included one Akhil Malakar who has been examined as D.W. 1 by the defence. He appears to be a close relative of the Appellant Rabi Malakar and Subodh Malakar. Her testimony has been supported by Nilmani Sarkar (P.W. 2) who is an independent witness and stated in no uncertain terms that the Appellant Pabitra Dey had hit the deceased on his head with the help of a spade. Other assailants also were found by him beating the deceased with lathi. He could identify only Pabitra Dey in the dock but failed to identify others. What has to be noticed from his deposition is that he is a truthful witness as he made no attempt to identify other Appellants which fact further indicates that he was not tutored by prosecution and he went by his own knowledge. It can, thus, be discerned from the evidence on record that on the fateful day six assailants were removing the fencing of deceased Sisir Ranjan Dhar and when the deceased offered opposition, they had mounted the pre-planned attack assaulting him with weapons including a spade. Even though he was confronted with his statement recorded by investigating Police Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) to show that he did not state to Police that Pabitra had given the blow on the head of the deceased or six persons were removing the fencing, the way he was confronted with is not in accordance with the established procedure in criminal trial. Omission of the above two statements to the Police does not destroy altogether the evidentiary value of his deposition that some assailants had assaulted the deceased on his land which was situated close to his house on the fateful day. P.W. 3 is the grand daughter of the deceased who hastened to the place of occurrence along with P.W. 1 to witness all the 5 assailants beating her grand father with lathi. P.W. 3 is the grand daughter of the deceased who hastened to the place of occurrence along with P.W. 1 to witness all the 5 assailants beating her grand father with lathi. The deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and as soon as they reached the place of occurrence the accused persons had retreated. According to her, the assailants had left the place of occurrence with the weapon of offence i.e. lathi and spade. Susital Dhar (P.W. 4) who is the son of the deceased was not in the house at the time of occurrence and so no attempt was made to show him as an eyewitness. Smt. Sumati Dhar (P.W. 5) accompanied P Ws 1 and 3 to the place of occurrence but she was tendered before the prosecution without examination for reasons known to them only. She was, however, cross-examined by the defence, but nothing material came out from her in support of the defence. Dr. B. Bhattacharjee (P.W. 6) had done the post mortem examination and opined that the death was due to the respiratory failure as a result of cebru vascular accident along with head injury. The post mortem report prepared by him has been marked as Ext. P-4. In cross-examination, he further disclosed that on account of severe head injury, there was internal haemorrhage set in motion inside the deceased. He found a lacerated wound also on the forehead of the deceased but it was simple in nature. The last witness for the prosecution is Sefal Roy Chowdhury (P.W. 7) who was Sub Inspector (SI) of Police of the Fatikroy Police Station and conducted the investigation which made out at the end a strong prima facie case against the Appellants herein as well as the absconder. 6. The convict-Appellants were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in order to enable them to explain the circumstances which appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. They stated that they had no knowledge about the case and all the allegations against them are false. One of them, Pabitra Dey, added that he had a dispute with the deceased over boundary fencing and for that reason he had been falsely implicated. They examined two witnesses, namely, Akhil Malakar (D.W. 1) and Joy Kumar Sarkar (D.W. 2). They stated that they had no knowledge about the case and all the allegations against them are false. One of them, Pabitra Dey, added that he had a dispute with the deceased over boundary fencing and for that reason he had been falsely implicated. They examined two witnesses, namely, Akhil Malakar (D.W. 1) and Joy Kumar Sarkar (D.W. 2). According to Akhil Malakar, immediately after the occurrence and hearing the loud cry of persons he went to the place of occurrence where he found Sisir Ranjan Dhar lying unconscious on the field. According to him, he was the first person who reached there after the occurrence and he did not see any of the Appellants at the spot. According to him, only after he raised alarm, the other persons including the inmates of the deceased came to the place of occurrence. He did not enquire how Sisir Ranjan sustained injuries which seems to be totally unusual. A person who reached the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injuries must enquire, going by the normal human conduct, about the persons responsible for causing injuries. He admitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the place where he was working was 300 cubits, but he claimed to have reached even before P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 who were all in the house of the deceased very close to the place of occurrence. In the same line, D.W. 2 Joy Kumar Sarkar had also deposed stating that after walking for 10 minutes and passing through some jungles he could reach near the doba to see the deceased lying with bleeding injuries. But he admitted that he was working with P.W. 2 in the house of the deceased which is adjacent to the doba. He has not explained why he had taken 10 minutes and had to pass through some jungles to reach the place of occurrence which is according to the other witnesses adjacent to the house of the deceased. According to him, no other person except Akhil Malakar reached there after his arrival. He, however, admitted that the family members of the deceased reached the spot but after him. Thus, it is difficult to believe these two witnesses who are manifestly tutored and planted to indicate innocence of the Appellants. 7. Mr. According to him, no other person except Akhil Malakar reached there after his arrival. He, however, admitted that the family members of the deceased reached the spot but after him. Thus, it is difficult to believe these two witnesses who are manifestly tutored and planted to indicate innocence of the Appellants. 7. Mr. Kar Bhowmik strenuously argued that no independent witness though available was put into the witness box which undoubtedly would throw the prosecution case into reasonable shadow of doubt. We have seen, similar argument was advanced before the Trial Court. We reiterate that we are not prepared to accept this submission for the reason that the occurrence had taken place adjacent to the house of the deceased and, therefore, only the inmates of the house of the deceased were the natural witnesses. Accordingly, the daughter and the grand-daughter of the deceased rushed to the place of occurrence to see the Appellants assaulting the old man with lathi and spade. All other witnesses had arrived only after the Appellants had made a retreat. That the witnesses even though close relations of deceased can be given full credence has been settled in a catena of decisions one of which was in State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa reported in (2006) 4 SCC 512 . The relevant portion appearing in paras 6 and 7 of the said judgment reads as follows: 6. The other reason assigned by the High Court in recording acquittal of the accused is that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were interested witnesses being relations of deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. By now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. 7. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. 7. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously. The High Court has brushed aside the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased. 8. The other argument advanced by Mr. Kar Bhowmik is that the death was not caused due to the injuries allegedly inflicted by the assailants as is evident from the deposition of the Medical Officer (P.W. 6). The said witness stated that the death was due to the cebru vascular accident along with head injury. According to Mr. Kar Bhowmik, cebru vascular accident is a stroke which had nothing to do with the head injury. In other words, cebru vascular accident can be described to be a situation when supply of blood is reduced causing a stroke. It is his submission that there is nothing in the post mortem report or in the deposition of the Medical Officer that the head injury sustained by the deceased led to cebru vascular accident and having regard to the old age of the deceased, there is every possibility of such a situation without any link to the head injury allegedly received by him in the occurrence. We are not prepared to accept this submission of Mr. Kar Bhowmik as we have noticed that the Medical Officer has used the word "cebru vascular accident along with head injury". We are not prepared to accept this submission of Mr. Kar Bhowmik as we have noticed that the Medical Officer has used the word "cebru vascular accident along with head injury". In the cross-examination, he further clarified by saying "on account of severe head injury, there was internal haemorrhage in the head of the brain of the deceased". Thus, what logically follows from a comprehensive reading and closer examination of the deposition of P.W. 6 is that the injuries sustained by the deceased caused internal haemorrhage in the head and, therefore, in our considered view, the cebru vascular accident which is short supply of blood to the brain is closely connected with the internal haemorrhage and evidently such a situation could not have arisen if the deceased had not received the head injury in the said occurrence. In support of his submission, Mr. Kar Bhowmik has placed reliance in Mariadasan and Ors. v. Varuvel and Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 573 and in State of Tamil Nadu v. Vela reported in AIR 1993 SC 1460 . After perusal of the said decisions, we are of the view that the Appellants in no way can derive any support therefrom. 9. In the final analysis, it would appear that admittedly the Appellants had a dispute over boundary fencing and they were dismantling the fencing of the deceased on the date and time of occurrence. The deceased had raised objection only to be surprised by the sudden attack from the Appellants with spade and lathi without any altercation or instigation establishing thereby that all the Appellants came prepared with the weapons to combat any opposition to their act of dismantling the fencing, if necessary, committing offence like murder. The motive is, thus, very much clear which supports the charge that they were actuated by a common object for commission of the offence of murder, if the situation so demanded and the very fact that they did not use any word and all on a sudden, immediately after the objection raised by the deceased, assaulted him on vital part of his body goes to show that they came well prepared with the common object of committing murder. For the discussions aforementioned, we are entirely in agreement with the observations of the learned Trial Court that there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the relative witnesses of the deceased who are the most natural witnesses and were first to reach the spot in view of proximity of their house to the place of occurrence. Nothing could be extracted from them or from the defence witnesses to show the relative witnesses had any good reason to falsely implicate innocent neighbours while allowing the real offenders to escape unpunished. As impeceable evidence of the relative witnesses placed in the circumstances surfaced from other materials inspired confidence, the learned Trial Court, in our view, has correctly convicted and sentenced the Appellants as seen above. There is, therefore, no reason for us to interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal has no merit and consequently the same is dismissed. Send down the case records to the learned Trial Court to take necessary steps for trial of the remaining accused as and when apprehended. Appeal dismissed