MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 30. 6. 2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Jude (Fast Track) No. 1,udaipur convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under-Accused Madanlal u/s. 449 IPC: ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. u/s. 302 IPC : Imprisonment for life term with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. u/s. 324 IPC : three years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Accused Pushkar Lal: u/s. 449 IPC: ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. u/s. 302/34 IPC: imprisonment for life term with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. u/s. 324/34 IPC: three years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of present appeals is that Shri Abhay Singh Bhati, Station House Officer, Police Station haranmagri,udaipur reached at Bank Wali Street, near Shiv Mandir, Savina on receiving a telephonic information at about 10:10 PM on March 14, 2003 relating to some incident of giving sword blows to one Shri Mangilal Brahman. After gathering certain relevant informations, the Station House Officer proceeded and reached to Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur where he recorded statements (Ex. P/13) of injured PW. 8 Smt. Shambhu Bai. As per the statement aforesaid, accused Madanlal and Pushkar Lal , both sons of Shankarlal (uncle-in-law of Smt. Shambhu Bai), were keeping vengeance with Mangilal son of Smt. Shambhu Bai due to some utterance taken place about 5-6 months earlier. Accused Madanlal and Pushkar Lal abused Mangilal at about 10:00 PM near Shiv Mandir, when he was returning to home from city. Subsequent thereto, accused Pushkar Lal entered in the house of informant and gripped Mangilal from his collar. Pushkar Lal also gave some slaps and punches to Mangilal. Accused Madanlal and Pushkar Lal abused Mangilal at about 10:00 PM near Shiv Mandir, when he was returning to home from city. Subsequent thereto, accused Pushkar Lal entered in the house of informant and gripped Mangilal from his collar. Pushkar Lal also gave some slaps and punches to Mangilal. Other accused Madanlal then came with a sword and gave four blows from that to Mangilal, including one at neck. Smt. Shambhu bai too received an injury on her hand while defending Mangilal. Mangilal, on receiving sword blows, fell down and the accused persons fled from the spot. Mangilal then was brought to the hospital for treatment, were he died. ( 3 ) ON basis of the statement Ex. P/13, a case was registered and investigation was initiated. After completion of investigation a final report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr. P. C. was filed before the Court of Judicial magistrate First Class, Udaipur (North) No. 2, charging the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324/34 IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to it. ( 4 ) THE trial Court after requisite hearing charged accused Madanlal for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 323 IPC and accused pushkar Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302/34 and 324/34 ipc. On denial of the same, regular trial was conducted. ( 5 ) THE prosecution substantiated its stand by getting examined testimony of 14 witnesses, out of whom PW. 8 Shambhu Bai, PW. 9 Shantilal PW. 10 sohanlal and PW. 13 Kaluram were cited as eye witnesses. ( 6 ) PW. 5 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma examined the injuries suffered by PW. 8 smt. Shambhu Bai, thus, he proved the injury report Ex. P/9 and medico legal report Ex. P/10. ( 7 ) PW. 6 Dr. Rahul Jain conducted autopsy on body of deceased Mangilal, thus, he proved the postmortem report Ex. P/11. ( 8 ) PW. 14 Abhaysingh Bhati, being Investigating Officer, narrated all the steps taken during the course of investigation. Accused persons were examined by the Court as per provisions of Section 313 Cr. P. C. with a view to have explanation regarding adverse material available in prosecution evidence. In defence, DW-1 Bhanwarlal Jain and DW-2 Bablu Kalal were produced before the court and were examined. Accused persons were examined by the Court as per provisions of Section 313 Cr. P. C. with a view to have explanation regarding adverse material available in prosecution evidence. In defence, DW-1 Bhanwarlal Jain and DW-2 Bablu Kalal were produced before the court and were examined. ( 9 ) LEARNED trial Court on basis of the evidence available held the accused persons guilty, thus, recorded conviction and awarded the sentence. While doing so, the trial Court mainly relied upon the eye witnesses PW. 8 shambhu Bai, PW. 9 Shantilal and PW. 10 Sohanlal, the medical evidence and the recovery of a sword made at the instance of accused Mandalal. Learned trial Court also held that the accused persons at the first instance abused deceased and then assaulted him by entering into his house, that clearly establishes pre-meeting of their minds. ( 10 ) IN appeal, the contention of counsel for accused Madanlal is that out of four eye witnesses PW. 8 Shambhu Bai, PW. 9 Shantilal and PW. 10 Sohanlal are interested witnesses being close relatives of deceased, therefore, their testimony is not reliable, specially in the circumstance that only one independent eye witness PW. 13 Kaluram has not supported the prosecution case. It is also urged that the recovery of a sword is of no consequence as on serological examination that was not found with any blood stains, though as per recovery memo Ex. P/8 the sword recovered was having blood stains. In alternative, it is also argued that even by accepting the prosecution case the act of accused madanlal does not travel beyond an offence punishable under Section 304 part-I IPC. It is asserted that there is absolute absence of motive and no evidence is available to establish intention of the accused to kill deceased mangilal. As per learned counsel, whatever incident occurred that was due to some spontaneous events taken place and the accused did not act overtly. ( 11 ) ON behalf of accused Pushkar Lal, it is contended that even as per prosecution the of this accused in the incident concern is very limited and as per that no offence except an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC can be made out. It is pointed out that as per eye witnesses, accused Pushkar Lal first came to the spot of occurrence and he held deceased from collar and then gave certain slaps and punches. It is pointed out that as per eye witnesses, accused Pushkar Lal first came to the spot of occurrence and he held deceased from collar and then gave certain slaps and punches. There is no evidence available on record to settle that accused Pushkar Lal was having any knowledge or was having any apprehension that accused Madanlal will come at the spot and that too with a deadly weapon like sword and then will make assault. As such, the common intention of committing a crime, as held by the trial court is having no foundation. ( 12 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and also scrutinised the record available. Before examining other merits of the case, we would like to discuss the medical evidence available. ( 13 ) PW. 6 Dr. Rahul Jain conducted autopsy on body of deceased mangilal, thus, he proved the postmortem report, according to that the person of deceased was having five antemortem injuries and out of those four were incised wounds, all grievous in nature. ( 14 ) THE cause of death as per postmortem report Ex. P/11 was haemorrhage and stock due to antemortem injuries to neck and cardial arteries (right), sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In view of the statements of PW. 6 Dr. Rahul Jain and the postmortem report Ex. P/ll, the homicidal death of deceased Mangilal stands established. ( 15 ) THE injury report of Smt. Shambhu Bai is available on record as ex. P/9 and the same was proved by PW. 5 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma. As per this witness the left wrist of injured Smt. Shambhu Bai was having an incised wound measuring 5 x 1 cm x muscle deep. This witness in quite unambiguous terms stated that the injury as occurred could have been received by a sharp edged weapon but not by a shaving blade. The statements of Dr. Akhilesh sharma corroborates the assertion made in the first information report and also in the statements of PW. 8 Shambhu Bai that while defending deceased mangilal she too received an injury on her hand, from a sharp edged weapon. ( 16 ) SO far as the eye witnesses PW. 8 Shambhu Bai, PW. 9 Shantilal and pw. Akhilesh sharma corroborates the assertion made in the first information report and also in the statements of PW. 8 Shambhu Bai that while defending deceased mangilal she too received an injury on her hand, from a sharp edged weapon. ( 16 ) SO far as the eye witnesses PW. 8 Shambhu Bai, PW. 9 Shantilal and pw. 10 Sohanlal are concerned, they have categorically stated that the accused persons were keeping vengeance with Mangilal and on fateful day they first abused him and then accused Pushkar Lal entered in the house, grabbed deceased from the collar and further gave him slaps and punches. At that time accused Madanlal too came, armed with a sword and gave several sword blows to deceased Mangilal. A sword blow was also given on neck of the deceased. There is no contradiction in narration of facts in the statements of the eye witnesses PW. 8 Shambhu Bai, PW. 9 Shantilal and PW. 10 Sohanlal. ( 17 ) TRUE it is, PW. 13 Kaluram has not supported the prosecution case and, thus, he was declared hostile, however, the other eye witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses merely on the count that they happens to be kith of deceased. The interested witness is a person, who possess some subjective and vested interest in result of the dispute and for that purpose he may deviate from objectivity and cause injury to the fair trial. No inference for being an interested witness can be drawn, just for the reason that the witness is in relation of a person concern. Yes, the evidence of relative witnesses demands cautious consideration, careful analysis and its otherwise trustworthiness. ( 18 ) IN the case in hand the eye witnesses though are relatives of deceased, have not tried to exaggerate anything beyond the incident witnessed by them. Worthwhile to note here that both the accused are real brothers and if the eye witnesses would have lost objectivity then nothing prevented them to exaggerate role and act of accused Pushkar Lal also in commission of crime, but they did not close to do so. All the three eye witnesses from inception are quite consistent and fortified the same before the court. The evidence given by the eye witnesses is adequately corroborated by the medical evidence, according to which deceased Mangilal received four injuries from sharp edged weapon. All the three eye witnesses from inception are quite consistent and fortified the same before the court. The evidence given by the eye witnesses is adequately corroborated by the medical evidence, according to which deceased Mangilal received four injuries from sharp edged weapon. All the three eye witnesses quite definitely stated about four sword blows given by accused Madanlal. The recovery of sword at the instance of accused Madanlal further substantiate the narration of the incident as given by the eye witnesses. In such circumstances we do not find any reason to disbelieve testimony of PW. 8 Shambhu Bai, PW. 9 shantilal and PW. 10 Sohanlal. From the evidence available and discussed above, it is amply proved that deceased Mangilal died because of sword blows given by accused Madanlal. ( 19 ) AFTER reaching at the finding aforesaid the other argument of learned counsel for the appellants that act of the accused does not travel beyond an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC, requires consideration. ( 20 ) FROM the evidence already discussed above, it is apparent that at least four sword blows were given by Madanlal to deceased Mangilal. If the accused would have given such blows without premeditation in a sudden fight or the heat of passion or upon a sudden quarrel, then he would have not taken undue advantage of the circumstances by giving four consecutive blows. In the present case accused Madanlal despite knowing it well that the weapon used by him and the injury given by him i. e. on neck of the deceased is sufficient to cause death, did not stop himself but repeatedly made assaults. These facts are sufficient to negativate the argument advanced by learned counsel that the act of accused Madanlal does not travel beyond the four corners of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part -I IPC. From consideration and discussions as made above, house trespass in order to commission of an offence punishable with death, also stands proved, thus, we do not find any wrong in recording conviction of accused appellant Madanlal for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC