JUDGMENT Nawab Singh, J. - The accused-appellant, above named, was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). He was convicted and sentenced by judgment and order dated October 9, 1997 as under:­ ARRANGE AS PER ORIGINAL 1 Offence Sentence Fine In default U/s 302 IPC Imprisonment for life Rs.5000/- One year 2. U/s 325 IPC Two years Rs.1000/- One year The sentences passed on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The accused-appellant preferred the appeal. 3. Per allegations, on August 21,1992 at about 7/7.30 p.m., Lila Singh (PW6), Amarjit Singh (PW7) and Mithu Singh (since deceased) were going from their house to the house of their employers, Gulzar Singh and Nek Singh in village Bhunder Bhaini, District Sangrur. When they reached near the house of Nek Singh, Maghar Singh accused-appellant raised lalkara that he would teach them a lesson for not paying back the amount due to him. Thereafter, the accused-appellant gave gandasa blows on the head and neck of Mithu Singh and on the left wrist of Lila Singh. Lila Singh and Amarjit Singh raised alarm “Bachao Bachao”. The accused-appellant fled away from the scene hurling abuses carrying the gandasa. 4. Lila Singh (PW6) and Mithu Singh were brought to Civil Hospital, Munak by Narsi and Amarjit Singh (PW7). Mithu Singh was declared brought dead, 5. The Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Munak sent the information (Exhibit PG) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Munak (for short “SHO”) that Mithu Singh and Lila Singh were brought to the hospital by Narsi Singh. Mithu Singh was declared dead. Lila Singh was admitted in an injured condition. On receipt of information (Exhibit PG), Darshan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (for short “ASI”) (PW10) reached Civil Hospital, Munak. , . He moved an application (Exhibit PL) to the Medical Officer as to whether Lila Singh (PW6) was fit to make statement or not. The Medical Officer, vide his opinion (Exhibit PU1) opined that Lila Singh was fit to make statement. The statement (Exhibit PG) of Lila Singh was recorded. Darshan Singh ASI (PW10) appended his endorsement (Exhibit PG/1) on the statement (Exhibit PG) and the same to the Police Station. On the basis of the same, First Information Report (for short “FIR”) (Exhibit PG/3) was recorded at 11.45. The statement (Exhibit PG) of Lila Singh was recorded. Darshan Singh ASI (PW10) appended his endorsement (Exhibit PG/1) on the statement (Exhibit PG) and the same to the Police Station. On the basis of the same, First Information Report (for short “FIR”) (Exhibit PG/3) was recorded at 11.45. P. M. on the same day against the accused­ appellant under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. 6. The inquest proceedings (Exhibit PO) were conducted. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The spot was inspected on August 22,1992 by the Investigator. Blood stained earth was secured into a sealed parcel vide seizure ‘memorandum (Exhibit PM). The rough site plan (Exhibit PN) of the place of occurrence was drawn. After post mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PO). 7. On September 3,1992, Janak Singh, Sarpanch produced Maghar Singh accused-appellant before the Investigator. He was arrested and interrogated, During interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PQ) to the effect that he had kept concealed a gandasa used by him in the alleged commission of crime near the gate of his house and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit PQ), the accused-appellant led the police party to the disclosed placed and got recovered the gandasa (Exhibit P1). Sketch (Exhibit PR) of the gandasa was prepared. The gandasa was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PS). After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the accused­ appellant was sent up for trial. 8. Charge, in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 326 IPC, was framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses viz. Dr.Hari Dutt Jyoti (PW1), Dr. Baljit Singh Natt (PW2), Dr. G.L. Goyal (PW3), Tejinder Kumar Draftsman (PW4), Dilbag Singh ASI (PW5), Lila Singh (PW6), Amarjit Singh (PW7), Baldev Singh Head Constable (PW8), Hardev Singh Constable (PW9) and Darshan Singh ASI (Investigator) (PW10). 10. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit PT/1) was tendered, in evidence. 11. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”), the accused denied the allegations and pleaded that he was implicated falsely. 12 The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties have been appraised. 11. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”), the accused denied the allegations and pleaded that he was implicated falsely. 12 The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties have been appraised. 13. Lila Singh (PW6) and Amarjit Singh (PW7), in their ocular testimony, narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place as has been detailed in the foregoing resume of facts, No material discrepancy could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, which could make a dent in the case of the prosecution. The only argument advanced to demolish their testimony is that the witnesses were relations to the deceased and as such were interested witnesses. It is not acceptable at all. Lila Singh (PW6) is a stamped witness. The accused-appellant caused injuries to him also. His presence at the spot can not be doubted. On the point of interested witnesses, the law is now well settled. Evidence of interested witnesses cannot be rejected on the sole ground that the witnesses are interested witnesses but the Court has to scrutinize evidence of the interested witnesses with care and caution, Lila Singh (PW6) is the real brother of the deceased. Amarjit Singh (PW7) is a relation of the deceased, that is, he is wife’s brother of Lila Singh, Since their evidence is trustworthy, so it cannot be discarded on the said score. It may be also pointed out that close relations of the deceased are, in fact, best witnesses, who would naturally like to ensure that the real culprits do not escape. A reference can be made to the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this connection, in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 S.C. 1390, It was held as follows: “‘Related’ is not equivalent to ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘Interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘Interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. ” In the circumstances of the instant case, the widow of the deceased was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of occurrence. True, it is she who is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an ‘interested’ witness. She is related to the deceased, She had no interest in protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the accused.” 14. The evidence of both these eye witnesses is also consistent with the medical evidence. Dr. Baljit Singh Natt, Medical, Officer Civil Hospital, Sangrur (PW2) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mithu Singh, The following injury was found on the deceased person : - “An incised wound 8 cm X 2 cm on the left side of the head, stretching from midline (4 cm anterior to the external occipital protuberance) upto a point 7 cm above the left mastoid process. Clotted blood present in the wound, underlying sub cutaneous tissue, bone, meninges and brain and blood vessels are cut. On dissection of the wound, clotted blood was found in the cranial cavity.” 15. The Medical Officer has proved the post mortem report (Exhibit PB). It was also opined by him that the injury on the person of Mithu Singh could be caused with the gandasa (Exhibit P1). 16. Lila Singh (PW6) was also medically examined by Dr. G.L. Goyal (PW3); who found the following injuries on his person­- “1. An incised wound of 8 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep in size on the postero lateral side of the left forearm and hand 22 cm below the elbow joint. Wound bleeds to touch. (Adv.x-Ray). 2. 4 abrasions of size varing from 1 x, 0.5 cm in size an area of 6 cm x 3.5 cm in size on the back of the left hand.” 17. Wound bleeds to touch. (Adv.x-Ray). 2. 4 abrasions of size varing from 1 x, 0.5 cm in size an area of 6 cm x 3.5 cm in size on the back of the left hand.” 17. On x-ray examination conducted by Dr.Hari Dutt Jyhoti, Radiologist (PW1), it was found that there was fracture of distal part of 5th metacarpal as described in injury No.1. 18. Statements of both the eye witnesses coincide with the medical evidence as described by the Medical Officer and referred to above. 19. The accused-appellant was arrested on September 3,1992. He was interrogated. In pursuance of his disclosure statement (Exhibit PQ), the gandasa (Exhibit P1) was recovered. The prosecution, in support of its case about the recovery of the gandasa, has examined Darshan Singh ASI (Investigator) (PW10). He has stated that the disclosure statement (Exhibit PS) was made in the presence of Ram Singh and Jagtar Singh Constables and in pursuance thereof, the gandasa (Exhibit P1) was got recovered by the accused-appellant from the right corner of the gate of his house. The recovery memorandum (Exhibit PS) was attested by the aforesaid witnesses. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of. Darshan Singh ASI (PW10). The gandasa was also sent to the Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of Punjab, Patiala. In its report (Exhibit PT/1), it was found that there was human blood on the gandasa. It again proves that the injury was caused by the accused-appellant to Mithu Singh deceased and Lila Singh with the gandasa recovered at his instance, The recovery furthers the case bf the prosecution. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, evidence of both the eye witnesses is convincing reliable and trustworthy. 21. It was also argued by learned counsel for, the appellant that offence falls under Section 304, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC. The accused-appellant used the deadly weapon, that is the gandasa in causing the injury to the deceased, The injury was caused on the vital area, that is, the head of the deceased, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This factor alone suggests that the accused-appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. It is a case of murder defined under Section 300 IPC and punishable under Section 302, IPC. This factor alone suggests that the accused-appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. It is a case of murder defined under Section 300 IPC and punishable under Section 302, IPC. It could not be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, as such, it cannot be brought within the mischief of Section 304 IPC as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant. 22. In upshot, the evidence on record clearly establishes the commission of the offence by the accused-appellant. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence as imposed by learned Trial Judge do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 23. The appeal is dismissed. ——————————