JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 03.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska at Bhanjanagar in S.C. No. 27 of 1999 (18/99 ADJ-I) convicting him under Sections 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.1998 at about 6 A.M. when the deceased, namely, Mahantar Naik, was taking cattle from his house to tie them in front of his house, the accused-appellant assaulted him by means of a “KATI”, as a result of which he succumbed to the injury at the spot. After committing the crime, the appellant fled away from the spot. 3. The plea of the appellant is that the deceased chased him holding a KATI and threatened to kill him as he was falsely alleging that the deceased was stealing his (appellant’s) bananas. He snatched away the KATI from the deceased and shaked it violently to protect him, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. The alternative plea of the accused-appellant during recording of the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is that he was dragged to the police station when he was sleeping in his hut and a false case was foisted against him. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and exhibited 15 documents and the defence has examined none. 5. The trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, found the accused-appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as already indicated hereinbefore with the finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 that they saw the accused dealing repeated KATI blows to the deceased is trustworthy and such evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8, the doctor, who found 22 incised wounds on the deceased during post-mortem. The trial Court also observed that human blood of group ‘O’ was found on the banian, kati and gamuchha seized from the accused-appellant and to that no explanation has been offered by him. 6. The trial Court also observed that human blood of group ‘O’ was found on the banian, kati and gamuchha seized from the accused-appellant and to that no explanation has been offered by him. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: (i) All the eye witnesses are interested being the relatives and nearby house owners of the deceased and no independent wit¬nesses has been examined by the prosecution; and (ii) There are material contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and contends that the evidence of the eye witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is very clear and cogent to the effect that they saw the accused-appellant giving repeated blows to the deceased by means of a “KATI”. There are no material contradictions in the evidence of the above witnesses. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the present accused-appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. 8. Perused the LCR. P.W.2 is the informant and brother of the deceased. He, in his evidence, has specifically stated that on 24.11.98, in the morning when he was sitting on the verandah of his house, he saw the accused dealing repeated blows to the deceased by means of a “KATI” near a well. He forbade the accused not to give further blows but the accused warned him not to venture near otherwise he would be killed. He specifically stated that the deceased sustained multiple bleeding cut injuries on his head, neck, chest and other parts of the body and died. Immedi¬ately after the incident, he along with the Gramarakhi went to Badagada P.S. and lodged a written report (Ext.4) scribed by one Rabi Dakua on his dictation. P.W.2 is also a witness to the inquest made over the dead body of the deceased and he proved the inquest report (Ext.3) and his signature thereon marked Ext.3/2. P.W.1 is a co-villager and agnatic brother of the deceased. He, in his examination-in-chief, has specifically deposed that in the morning of 24.11.1998 at about 6.00 AM, while bringing his cattle out, he saw the accused giving repeated blows with a “KATI” on different portions of the body of the deceased. When he shouted and chased to catch the accused, he escaped through a gorji (Lane). He, in his examination-in-chief, has specifically deposed that in the morning of 24.11.1998 at about 6.00 AM, while bringing his cattle out, he saw the accused giving repeated blows with a “KATI” on different portions of the body of the deceased. When he shouted and chased to catch the accused, he escaped through a gorji (Lane). He has further deposed that he saw the incident from a distance of about 10 cubits and found multiple injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased including head, neck, back chest. P.W.1 is a witness to the seizure as well as the inquest and proved the seizure lists (Exts. 1 & 2) and the in¬quest report (Ext.3) and his signatures put therein. P.W.3, who is another co-villager of the accused and the deceased, deposed that when he was bringing his cattle out of his house, he heard shouts that the accused was killing the deceased.His house is at 12 houses apart from the well near which the accused was dealing “KATI” blows to the deceased. He stated to have witnessed the same while rushing to the spot. But in cross-examination he has specifically deposed that when he reached the spot, the accused had already killed the deceased and he saw him running away through the Gorji (lane). P.W.4 is the widow of the deceased and an ocular witness. She has also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. She, in the cross-examination, has stated that the house of P.W.1 is situated at a distance of 5 cubits away from the spot. Nothing has been elicited from her in the cross-examination. P.W.5 is a post occurrence witness, who heard from P.W.2 that the accused had killed his brother. He went to the spot and also accompanied P.W.2 to the police station. P.W.6 is the I.O. of the case, who during the course of investigation prepared the spot map (Ext.5), arrested the accused while he was proceeding on the road towards Badagada carrying a ‘KATI’ and seized the kati, Gamuchha and banian from his posses¬sion, sent the accused-appellant to the Badagada P.H.C. for detection of any bloodstain on his person, also sent seized articles to R.F.S.L. Berhampur through the J.M.F.C., Surada received the chemical examination report Ext.14 and on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet. P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the accused on police requisition. P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the accused on police requisition. He deposed that he found some tiny blood clots without any injury present on the top of his left shoulder and backside and middle part of his left forearm.He also collected some sample clots and preserved in normal saline, sealed it and sent the same to the O.I.C. Badagad. He further deposed that he did not find any visible injury on the entire body of the ac¬cused. In his cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. P.W.8 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found as many as 22 grievous in¬juries. He has specifically deposed that all the injuries were inflicted by sharp cutting weapon like “KATI” and were ante mortem in nature. He further deposed that injury no. 10, i.e., “incised wound 4” x 2" x 2" cutting the trachea below the thyroid cartilage cutting the oesophagus both the sterno clavicular muscles and RT. external carotid and thyroid gland and exposing cervical vertebra no.5 and 6" is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The death was also caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the multiple effect of the injuries within 12 hours. He also examined the “KATI” sent through a constable as per requisition (Ext.12) and stated that all the injuries mentioned in his report could have been caused by the said “KATI”. Nothing has been elicited from him in the cross-examination to discredit his evidence. 9. Upon scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2 which has been corroborated by P.Ws. 1,3 and 4, it is crystal clear that the accused-appellant is the assailant of the deceased and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have seen the occurrence. P.W.3 is a post occurrence wit¬nesses. By scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that when he reached the spot, the accused-appellant fled away through gorji (lane) after killing the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.2, who is the agnatic brother of the deceased & an ocular witness, it is clear that he saw the accused giving repeated blows to the deceased by means of the “KATI”. P.W.1 is also an eye witness to the assault. 10. It is the settled principles of law that on the ground of interestedness, the Court cannot throw out the entire evi¬dence. P.W.1 is also an eye witness to the assault. 10. It is the settled principles of law that on the ground of interestedness, the Court cannot throw out the entire evi¬dence. It has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Obula Reddi & others V. State of Andhara Pradesh; AIR 1981 SC 82 , that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discarding or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witness¬es 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 base a conviction thereon. 11. Keeping in mind the above ratio, this Court examined the evidence of the eye witnesses and found that P.W.1 is the agnatic brother and co-villager of the deceased. He saw the accused giving repeated blows to the deceased. He also corrobo¬rated the evidence of P.W.2 to the effect that the accused as¬saulted the deceased. P.W.2 is a co-villager of the deceased as well as the accused. The house of the accused is adjacent to his house. While sitting on his verandah, he saw the accused dealing repeated ‘KATI’ blows to the deceased.When he asked the accused no to give further blows, the latter threatened him with dire consequences. He is a neighbour of the deceased and there is no reason why he should speak falsehood against the accused when there is nothing on record to show that he was inimically dis¬posed towards the accused. P.W.4 is the widow of the deceased who also corroborated P.W.2 in all material particulars. The evidence of the doctor also supported the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. The lungi, KATI and the banian were seized from the possession of the accused-appellant. P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the accused-appellant, found some tiny blood clots without any injury on different portions of the body of the appellant. The evidence of the doctor also supported the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. The lungi, KATI and the banian were seized from the possession of the accused-appellant. P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the accused-appellant, found some tiny blood clots without any injury on different portions of the body of the appellant. No explana¬tion whatsoever has been offered by the appellant regarding presence of blood on his body as well as his wearing apparels. This further supports the eye witnesses account as to the role played by the accused-appellant. In view of all these, this Court opines that in the present case, the eye witnesses are reliable witnesses and their evidence cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground of relationship and interestedness. 12. On an analysis of the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the accused-appellant is the author of the crime and, therefore, there is no scope for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court which is accordingly upheld. The Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed. S.K. MISHRA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.