Judgment ABHIJIT SINHA, J. 1. Both the appeals have been taken up together as they arise out of the same judgment and order of the Sessions Court and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and order all the seven appellants have been convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Dharamveer Yadav in furtherance of their common intention and each of them have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to the informant, namely, the father of the deceased, Dharamveer Yadav, and in default there of to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. That apart appellants Sulochan Yadav and Chandreshwar Yadav have also been found guilty for commission of the offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. There was a direction for the sentence to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as set out in the fardbeyan of Kishori Yadav (P.W.7) given to the A.S.I. of Barh Police Station on 12.2.1995 at around 9 P.M. in the Barh Sub Divisional Hospital, was to the effect, that earlier the same day at around 6.30-8. P.M. he along with his son, deceased Dharamveer, were in their bathan where the aforesaid accused, namely, Rajendra @ Rajo Gope @ Rajendra Yadav, Upendra Gope @ upendra Yadav, Chandeshwar @ Chandeshwar Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Haran Yadav, Sulochan Gope @ Sulochan Yadav, and Ramashray Gope @ Ramashray Yadav variously armed with farsa and lathi arrived and accused Rajendra Yadav allegedly abusing the informant stated that your bhabhu unnecessarily raises bulla and enters into a quarrel with the female inmates of his house over the door of the room housing the chaff (bhusa) being kept open when her house was adjacent thereto. The informant is said to have objected to the abuses being hurled whereupon Rajendra Gope again started abusing and exhorted the remaining intruders to assault. Following the orders Ramashray Gope armed with a lathi assaulted Dharamveer, the son of the informant, on his head with intent to kill, and as a result thereof Dharamveer fell to ground whereupon the other accused persons also assaulted him. Following the orders Ramashray Gope armed with a lathi assaulted Dharamveer, the son of the informant, on his head with intent to kill, and as a result thereof Dharamveer fell to ground whereupon the other accused persons also assaulted him. The informant is said to have rushed there to save the son but he too was assaulted on his leg by Sulochan Yadav and Chandeshwar Yadav by means of lathi as a result whereof he fell down. It is further said that on alarm being raised Nago Yadav, Bijo Yadav and Suryadeo Yadav arrived whereupon the accused went away after advancing threats. The injured are said to have been removed to the Barh Hospital and in view of the informants son being in serious condition, his case was referred to Patna and the informant was treated at the Barh Hospital. 4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Barh P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 I.P.C. was registered against the 7 First Information Report named accused and in view of the subsequent death of Dharamveer Section 302 I.P.C. was added in the case. After due investigation the police submitted a charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 I.P.C. and charges were framed after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions. Whereas charge under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. was brought against seven accused Sulochan Yadav and Chandeshwar were further charged under Sec. 323 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The plea of defence is a denial of the charges levelled against them and of their innocence. It is their specious stand that they have been falsely implicated in this case that too when no occurrence as alleged ever took place and Dharamveer was killed at another place. 6. In the eventual trial that commenced State examined altogether 14 witnesses, Those were the house inmates, police officials and also the doctors. Kishori Yadav (P.W.7) maker of the fardbeyan while reiterating his earlier version stated at the trial about accused Ramashray Gope inflicting lathi blow on the head of his son Dharamveer who later succumbed due to the injuries. He also stated of accused Chandeshwar and accused Sulochan assaulting him on the leg by means of lathi. Kishori Yadav (P.W.7) maker of the fardbeyan while reiterating his earlier version stated at the trial about accused Ramashray Gope inflicting lathi blow on the head of his son Dharamveer who later succumbed due to the injuries. He also stated of accused Chandeshwar and accused Sulochan assaulting him on the leg by means of lathi. In course of his cross examination P.W.7 in paragraph 35 at page 66 of the brief categorically stated that it was Ramashray that had dealt the lathi blow on the head of Dharamveer. The other inmates of the house examined by the prosecution were Suryadeo Yadav (P.W.1) and Bijendra Yadav (P.W.2) both brothers of the informant, Subuja Devi (P.W.4) the wife of the informant and Bhimal Prasad (P.W. 5) the cousin of P.W.s. 1, 2 and 7. They, in unison, have reiterated the modus of assault resorted to by the accused persons. Girija Devi @ Isha Devi (P.W.3) though denying being a gotia of the informant with slight deviation in her testimony has also supported the prosecution story in material particulars. She stated that the accused had initially attacked and chased her but as she managed to escape their chase, their anger was diverted to Kishori and Dharamveer. These five witnesses happen to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. The defence in course of their cross examination of these witnesses has not been able to extract any material particulars so as to impeach or discredit the credence of these witnesses. However, Ramnandan Yadav (P.W. 11), Nago Yadav (P.W.12) and Sanjay Kumar (P.W. 13) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared to be hostile. 7. Two fold contentions were raised at the bar on behalf of the appellants ostensibly to assail the finding recorded by the Court below and it was sought to be urged that from the narration made by the witnesses it would be apparent that the Court below has placed reliance on the testimony of witnesses who were none else but only family members of the informant. It is urged that even though villagers were suggested to have rushed to the place of occurrence the prosecution had not taken pains for their examination and such as those independent witnesses who have been examined have turned hostile. It is urged that even though villagers were suggested to have rushed to the place of occurrence the prosecution had not taken pains for their examination and such as those independent witnesses who have been examined have turned hostile. On these premises it was sought to be submitted that there has been evidence of only interested witnesses entirely to the exclusion of those who could have been independent witnesses. 8. The other plank of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that the immediate cause of incident which was projected to be the genesis of the incidence was so trivial that a person was not expected to have reacted so strongly to take recourse to extreme step of executing killing of a minor. In this context it was submitted that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment without there being any intention or premeditation to kill Dharamveer and in that view of the matter the learned Trial Court had erred in convicting the appellants for the commission of offences under Sec. 302 with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. 9. As noticed above six prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have supported the prosecution case in material particulars and the defence has not been able to extract any substantial matters so as to discredit their credibility. There may be a view embellishment or discrepancies in their testimony but that by itself cannot be a ground to throw away the prosecution case. 10. In State of Hamachal Pradesh Vs. Shree Kant Shekari reported in (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Apex Court had observed that wherein the victim and her mother are rustic woman and practically illiterate and to examine their evidence with microscopic approach would be an insult to justice oriented judicial system. It would be totally detached from the realities of life. 11. In the instant case all the eyewitnesses appear to be villagers with rustic characteristic and to examine their evidence with miscroscopic approach specially in regard with the discrepancies and embellishments in respect of their testimony would be hypocritical. The Trial Court, in fact, has analysed the position in correct detail and had arrived at a right conclusion regarding the reliability of their testimony. 12. The Trial Court, in fact, has analysed the position in correct detail and had arrived at a right conclusion regarding the reliability of their testimony. 12. So far as the submission of partisan or interested witnesses is concerned in the present circumstances, we note with discontent that such submission, is a regular feature which is sought to be raised in all criminal trials and appeals. It is by now well settled that the very fact that witness is a relative or in some way attached to the informant does not lead to a situation where his testimony should automatically be rejected by virtue of his proximity with informant. It is the credibility of the witness that is required to be looked into rather than his proximity to the informant or the victim. It is by now well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased or the informant or the victim if he is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. It only requires scrutiny with more care and caution so that neither the guilty escape nor the innocent wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny the evidence is found to be reliable and probable it can be acted upon. If it is found to be improbable or suspicious it ought to be rejected. Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should have corroboration in regard to material particulars before it is accepted. We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the testimony of the eye witnesses and the same cannot be rejected even though the said eye witnesses were closely related to the deceased. 13. Now we shall deal with the second limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that is that the occurrence took place in the spur of the moment and was without any intention or premeditation. 14. The death of Dharamveer is not in dispute. The contents of the autopsy report are also not in dispute. The report indicate three anti mortem injury on the person of the deceased, Dharmveer, namely: I. Stitched wound 1" on head between left and right parietal region. II. Blackening was present on the right eye III. Abrasion of size 2" x 1" on the back. The contents of the autopsy report are also not in dispute. The report indicate three anti mortem injury on the person of the deceased, Dharmveer, namely: I. Stitched wound 1" on head between left and right parietal region. II. Blackening was present on the right eye III. Abrasion of size 2" x 1" on the back. On dissection of the head chest and abdomen, Fracture of size 1.5" was present on left occipital bone; the extradural haemotoma was present in the brain matter: Liver, spleen and both kidneys were found congested. In the opinion of the doctor P.W.6 Dr. Bishundeo Prasad, who conducted the post mortem on the person of deceased. Dharamveer, cause of death was due to head injury and nature of violence. The doctor further opined that injury numbers (i) and (ii) could not be ascertained due to prior surgical interference and injury no. (iii) was caused by hard and blunt object. 15. P.W. 8 Dr. S.K. Sinha, Civil Assistant Surgeon was on 12.2.1995 posted in the Sub Divisional Hospital at Barh and had occasion to examine Dharamveer Yadav at about 7.30 P.M. in the Emergency Ward of the hospital. He stated that observing the critical conditions of the injured, he. referred him to the P.M.C.H. Emergency and before referring the patient he had examined him and had found the following injuries namely: (a) The injured was brought with head injury in unconscious state, and in stage of convulsion, and also noted external injuries over head. (b) the injuries on head was one sharp cut wound found over midunion of two parietal bones of skull with diffused swelling around would. The size of the injury was 1.5" X 1.4" X bone with profuse bleeding. The doctor reserved his opinion regarding the nature of the injury awaiting the report of the P.M.C.H. 16 The fact that Dharamveer was inflicted a blow on his head by means of a lathi wielded by accused Ramashray Gop, as we have seen, has been supported by the eye witnesses and the testimony of P.W. 6 Dr. Bishundeo Prasad gives the concluding result of that blow namely fracture of the left occipital bone and extradural haematoma. 17. However, the learned counsel of the appellants placing reliance on the injury report of P.W. 8, Dr. Bishundeo Prasad gives the concluding result of that blow namely fracture of the left occipital bone and extradural haematoma. 17. However, the learned counsel of the appellants placing reliance on the injury report of P.W. 8, Dr. S.K. Sinha, sought to point out that initial report indicated that it was an incised wound which could have been caused by a blow by means of Lathi. 18. The place of injury was on the parietal region. In certain situations the wounds produced by a blunt instrument may simulate appearances of an incised wound. 19. The ultimate result of all the discussions is whether Ramashray Gope, the author of the blow on the head of the minor Dharamveer, a nine year old child, and his consequent death could be construed to be an offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since there was no premeditation or repetition of blow by accused Ramashray Gope the offence could not be construed to be one falling within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. and as it has occurred on the spur of the moment at best it can be an offence under Sec. 304 Part II I.P.C. 20. We are of the opinion that there is no justification for the assertions that giving of a solitary blow on the vital part of the body, namely, the head resulting in death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the Penal Code. In the instant case Ramashray Gope has chosen a minor child aged about 8-9 years to vent his anger and in doing so inflicted a lathi blow on the head of the minor which resulted in the fracture of occipital bone causing his death. The fact that the accused gave only one blow by itself would not mitigate the offence to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are several decisions where single blow inflicted by the accused resulting in death have been found to be sufficient for conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. Gainful reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Virsa Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1958 SCR 1459), Gudar Dusadh Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1972 SC 952 ). Vasanta Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 Supp. SCC 468, Jai Prakash Vs. State of Bihar (1958 SCR 1459), Gudar Dusadh Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1972 SC 952 ). Vasanta Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 Supp. SCC 468, Jai Prakash Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1991) 2 SCC 32 , State of Karnataka V. Vedanayagam, (1995) 1 SCC 326 and the latest being Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 444 . 21. As far back as in 1958 Vivian Bose, J. in Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) opined that infliction of one injury by the accused may be sufficient to hold him guilty for commission of an offence under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code. Then again in Jagrup Singh Vs. State of Haryana ( AIR 1981 S.C. 1552 ) the Apex Court made efforts to sum up the legal position regarding single blow injury thus: 6. There is no justification for the assertion that the giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the Code. If a man deliberately stikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull, he must, in the absence of any circumstances negativing the presumption, be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim or such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. The whole thing depends upon the intention to cause death, and the case may be covered by either clause firstly or clause thirdly. The nature of intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death." 22. In the instant case appellant Ramashray Gope was carrying a lathi, a dangerous weapon. The deceased, the minor child of 8-9 years ago, was unarmed. There was no provocation, sudden quarrel or fight. There was no indication of any cause for an apprehension on the part of the appellant that the deceased may attack him. In the instant case appellant Ramashray Gope was carrying a lathi, a dangerous weapon. The deceased, the minor child of 8-9 years ago, was unarmed. There was no provocation, sudden quarrel or fight. There was no indication of any cause for an apprehension on the part of the appellant that the deceased may attack him. The lathi blow appears to have been dealt with great force causing injury, namely, fracture of parietal bone, a vital part of the body, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The circumstances to bring the case under Sec. 304 Part II I.P.C. do not exist. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Ramashray Gope be convicted under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and not 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. as the other appellants had no hand in causing the death of minor Dharamveer. 23. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case while maintaining the conviction of appellant Ramashray Gope under Sec. 302 I.P.C. simplicitor we acquit the remaining appellants of the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 24. Appellants Chandeshwar and Sulochan have also been convicted and sentenced for commission of the offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. for having caused injuries to informant P.W.7 (Kishori Yadav) Kishori Yadav has been examined by Dr. S.K. Sinha (P.W.8) who has also indicated the injuries sustained by Kishori Yadav. We are of the opinion that Sulochan and Chandeshwar have been rightly convicted under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and while maintaining the conviction we modify the sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to the period already undergone and this in our opinion shall be in the ends of justice. 25. In the result Cr. Appeal No. 99 of 2002 succeeds in part. The conviction of these appellants under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. is set aside and so far as Chandeshwar and Sulochan are concerned their conviction under Sec. 323 I.P.C. is maintained but their sentence is modified to the period already undergone. These appellants are on bail They are accordingly discharged from the liabilities of the respective bail bonds. 26. Since we are of the opinion that the appellant of Cr. These appellants are on bail They are accordingly discharged from the liabilities of the respective bail bonds. 26. Since we are of the opinion that the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 121 of 2002 Ramashray Gope @ Ramashray Yadav deserves to be convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. instead of under Section 302 with the aid of Sec. 34 I.P.C. we dismiss the appeal and sentence awarded to him by the trial Court is maintained.