Judgment Sushma Shrivastava, J. ( 1. ) Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T. No.62/02, decided on 31.01.2004. ( 2. ) Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) According to prosecution, on 2.2.2002 complainant Sunki Bai and her husband Hanslal (deceased) had visited the place of their relative Tarelal at village Sindrai. When about 8 Oclock at night complainant Sunki Bai, her husband Hanslal and Tarelal were sitting in the courtyard warming themselves from the fire, appellant Munna, the younger brother of Tarelal came with an axe in his hand and without uttering a word, assaulted Hanslal on his head and neck by blunt side of the axe and fled away. As a result of assault and injuries, Hanslal fell down, he was taken inside the house and made to lie down but he got unconscious at about 4 0clock in the morning. Patel and Kotwar of the village were then informed and bullock cart was arranged for taking the injured to the Police Station, but he succumbed to his injuries on way to Police Station. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Sunki Bai, the wife of the deceased at P.S. Umreth, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. Merg intimation was also recorded and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased Hanslal was sent for postmortem examination. Blood stained earth and plain earth were seized from the spot. The spot map was also drawn. During investigation, the axe used in the commission of offence was seized at the instance of the appellant. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 4. ) Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication at the instance of his brother Tarelal and his wife Parwati Bai due to enmity over the land dispute. ( 5. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 4. ) Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication at the instance of his brother Tarelal and his wife Parwati Bai due to enmity over the land dispute. ( 5. ) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for intentionally causing the death of Hanslal, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of IPC as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant by placing implicit reliance on the testimony of interested and related witnesses and failed to appreciate that appellant was falsely implicated at the instance of his brother Tarelal due to enmity and land dispute. ( 7. ) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 8. ) We have perused the entire evidence on record. ( 9. ) It is clearly evident from the medical evidence of Dr. P.K.Soni (P.W-15) that deceased Hanslal met a homicidal death. Dr. P.K. Soni (P.W-15), who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Hanslal found following antemortem injuries over his body:- (I) Contusion 3" x 1 " oblique on the back. (II) Contusion 3" x 1" oblique below injury no.1. (III)Lacerated wound of 2" x oblique bone deep on occipital region. (IV)Occipital fracture 2" x " oblique with rupture of duramater membrane and hamatoma present. ( 10. ) In the opinion of Dr. P.K. Soni (P.W-15), cause of death of deceased Hanslal was hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to vital organs and his death had occurred within 24 to 36 hours of postmortem examination. Dr. P.K. Soni (P.W-15) also clarified during cross-examination that injury no.3 to the deceased could be caused by the blunt side of an axe, and the injuries on his scalp and vital organs like brain had caused hemorrhage resulting into the death of Hanslal. ( 11. ) There are no reasons to discard or disagree with the aforesaid medical evidence, which clearly indicates that death of deceased Hanslal was homicidal in nature. ( 12. ( 11. ) There are no reasons to discard or disagree with the aforesaid medical evidence, which clearly indicates that death of deceased Hanslal was homicidal in nature. ( 12. ) The next question to be examined is whether appellant Munna intentionally caused the homicidal death of Hanslal? ( 13. ) The conviction of appellant is based mainly on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, namely, Sunki Bai (P.W-1), Tarelal (P.W-3) and Parwati Bai (P.W-5). Complainant Sunki Bai (P.W-1) is the wife of deceased Hanslal. Sunki Bai (P.W-1) deposed in her evidence that at the time of Holi, she alongwith her husband Hanslal had gone to village Sindrai to visit their relatives. According to Sunki Bai (P.W-1), about 8 Oclock at night when she and her husband Hanslal and Tarelal were sitting in the courtyard of Tarelal warming themselves from the fire, appellant Munna came with an axe, and assaulted her husband on his scalp and scapular region by blunt side of the axe and fled away. As a result of assault, Hanslal fell down; when he was being taken to the Police Station Umreth first in bullock cart and thereafter in the jeep, he died on the way. She then lodged the report at Police Station Umreth. The FIR (Ex.P-2) lodged by complainant Sunki Bai (P.W-1) was recorded by Sub Inspector L.R.Dubey (P.W-13 ) at Police Station, Umreth on 3.2.02. ( 14. ) The evidence of complainant Sunki Bai (P.W-1) also stands corroborated by the testimony of Tarelal (P.W-3) and Parwati Bai (P.W-5). Tarelal (P.W-3) also categorically deposed that on Saturday about 8Oclock at night at village Sindrai when Hanslal and Sunki Bai, who had visited him, were sitting with him in the courtyard around the fire to warm themselves, appellant Munna came from the back and assaulted Hanslal by axe and fled away. According to Tarelal (P.W-3), appellant Munna had given two axe blows on the scalp of the deceased from its blunt side, which resulted into his death. ( 15. ) Parwati Bai (P.W-5), the wife of Tarelal also deposed that her relatives Hanslal and his wife Sunki Bai had visited them and about 8 Oclock in the night when they were sitting alongwith her husband in the courtyard of her house around the fire, appellant Munna had assaulted Hanslal by axe from its blunt side. ( 15. ) Parwati Bai (P.W-5), the wife of Tarelal also deposed that her relatives Hanslal and his wife Sunki Bai had visited them and about 8 Oclock in the night when they were sitting alongwith her husband in the courtyard of her house around the fire, appellant Munna had assaulted Hanslal by axe from its blunt side. According to Parwati Bai (P.W-5) at the time of incident she was cooking food in the house and had witnessed the incident. ( 16. ) The aforesaid three eyewitnesses were extensively cross-examined, but there are no cogent reasons to disbelieve their evidence that they had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased by blunt side of the axe. Although complainant Sunki Bai (P.W-1) slightly deviated in her cross-examination and said that due to darknight she could not see and identify the assailant, the next moment she asserted that appellant Munna had assaulted the deceased and she was present in the courtyard at the time of incident. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that the cross-examination of Sunki Bai (P.W-1) was deferred at the request of the defence counsel and the same was recorded nearly after three months; therefore, the possibility of her being won over in the span of three months cannot be ruled out. However, she has given a positive statement against the appellant in her examination-in- chief, which also stands corroborated by the FIR (Ex.P-2) lodged by her. Needless to add that Sunki Bai (P.W-1) refuted the suggestion given in her cross-examination that her husband Hanslal was assaulted by Tarelal. More so, had it been so, she would not have gone to the Police with Tarelal (P.W-3) to lodge the report. It also sounds unnatural and unreasonable that complainant Sunki Bai (P.W-1) would save the real assailant of her husband and lodge a false report against the appellant, who is admittedly the real brother of Tarelal (P.W-3) as well as her own relative. ( 17. ) Similarly, the evidence of Tarelal (P.W-3) and his wife Parwati Bai (P.W-5) also does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to be discredited. Both Tarelal (P.W-3) and his wife Parwati Bai (P.W-5) have denied any serious property dispute with the appellant. Both of them also denied the suggestion that deceased Hanslal was assaulted by Tarelal (P.W-3) himself due to some sudden quarrel. Both Tarelal (P.W-3) and his wife Parwati Bai (P.W-5) have denied any serious property dispute with the appellant. Both of them also denied the suggestion that deceased Hanslal was assaulted by Tarelal (P.W-3) himself due to some sudden quarrel. Had it been really so, Sunki Bai (P.W-1), the wife of the deceased, who was present at the time of occurrence, would have lodged the report against Tarelal (P.W-3) and not against appellant or at least appellant would himself have lodged such report against Tarelal (P.W-3) with the Police. There is also no such other evidence on record that any third person other than the appellant assaulted deceased Hanslal and caused his death. ( 18. ) Besides the evidence of Bairagi (P.W-6) also indicates that the appellant had himself confessed before him (P.W-6) that he had assaulted the deceased. Although Bairagi (P.W-6) was declared hostile by the prosecution, it is well settled, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court Page 1853, that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off from the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent the version of such witness is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. ( 19. ) Moreso, even if the evidence of Bairagi (P.W-6) as to the extra judicial confession made by the appellant is excluded, there is positive eyewitness account of the incident given by the wife of the deceased, namely, Sunki Bai (P.W-1), Tarelal (P.W-3) and Parwati Bai (P.W-5), which also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence of these witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are related or interested witnesses. As held by the Apex Court in the Case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 AIR SCW page 4143 the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of the three eyewitnesses, namely, Sunki Bai (P.W-1), Tarelal (P.W-3) and Parwati Bai (P.W-5), we are satisfied that their evidence is truthful and acceptable. ( 20. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of the three eyewitnesses, namely, Sunki Bai (P.W-1), Tarelal (P.W-3) and Parwati Bai (P.W-5), we are satisfied that their evidence is truthful and acceptable. ( 20. ) It was faintly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no enmity or motive to cause the death of Hanslal; but when there is direct evidence against the appellant that he assaulted the deceased causing his death, motive can hardly assume any importance. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the Case of Yunus @ Kariya Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2003(1) SCC 425 that establishment of motive is not a sine qua non for proving the prosecution case. ( 21. ) In the wake of aforesaid, it was clearly established from the ocular evidence coupled with corroborative medical evidence that appellant Munna assaulted the deceased by an axe and caused injuries on his vital part like scalp and thereby intentionally caused his death. Thus, in our opinion, the trial court committed no error in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. ( 22. ) We find no merit in the appeal. We uphold the conviction of the appellant and life sentence with fine of Rs. 1000/-, awarded to him under Section 302 of IPC. Appeal fails and is dismissed.