JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12th of August, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 2/91 by the Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District Sarguja. By the impugned judgment, the Appellants have been convicted Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in 2 counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to further under R.I. for 6-6 months. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The two deceased persons namely Bhaskar and Dhaneshwar were real brothers. Their other brothers are Bhuneshwar Prasad (PW-11), Jugeshwar (PW-17), Sukhsagar (PW-13) and Pannalal (PW-14). All were residents of village Kuniya Kala. On 27.8.90, two buffaloes of accused Ramratan (A-1) had grazed the ground-nut crop of Jugeshwar Prasad (PW-17). A Panchayat was organized. Ramratan (A-1) did not turn-up in Panchayat. On the next day i.e. on 28.8.90 Jugeshwar (PW-17) caught Ramratan (A-1) when he was returning from the forest. A quarrel took place between them and Ramratan (A-1) assaulted Jugeshwar by danda, who received multiple injuries. Ramratan (A-1) also received injuries. Jugeshwar (PW-17) and his brother Bhuneshwar (PW-11) went to police station Ambikapur and lodged a report of this incident at about 5.30 p.m. This was reduced into writing in Rojnamchasana No. 1970 (Ex.-P/10). The other 2 brothers namely Dhaneshwar and Bhaskar (deceased persons) also came to Ambikapur by their bicycles. They met Jugeshwar (PW-17). Jugeshwar was medically examined. After all this, in the night, 4 brothers were returning to their village. Deceased- Dhaneshwar and Bhaskar were on their bicycles and Jugeshwar (PW-17) and Bhuneshwar (PW-11) were on a mopad. They were following the two deceased persons who were on their bicycles. The allegations are that at about 9.00 p.m. when they were on the way to their village, the accused persons came their; they were having lathis; they attacked over deceased Dhaneshwar & Bhaskar and caused multiple injuries to them by lathis and knife, who succumbed to those injuries. The case of the prosecution is that the 2 witnesses namely Bhuneshwar (PW-11) and Jugeshwar (PW-17) witnessed the incident in the head-light of Luna and the torch carried by them. Seeing all this, they became frightened and returned towards Ambikapur. The case of the prosecution is that the 2 witnesses namely Bhuneshwar (PW-11) and Jugeshwar (PW-17) witnessed the incident in the head-light of Luna and the torch carried by them. Seeing all this, they became frightened and returned towards Ambikapur. When the accused persons went away from the place of occurrence, they went to the village and narrated the story to their brothers Sukhsagar (PW-13) and Pannalal (PW-14). On 29.8.90 i.e. on next day they reached to the police station Ambikapur and Bhuneshwar (PW-11) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.-P/13) at 8.05 a.m. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquests (Ex.-P/1 & P/2) on the dead bodies of the deceased. The dead bodies were sent for their post-mortem to Government Hospital, Ambikapur. The post-mortem examinations were conducted by Dr. Narendra Sharma (PW-12). He noticed following injuries on the dead body of deceased- Dhaneshwar Prasad: (i) Contusion 15 cm x 3.5 cm on right shoulder; (ii) Multiple lacerated wounds on left frontal and temporal region. There were multiple lacerations on the jaws having fractures; (w) Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm on the middle of the scalp; (iv) Incised wound '2.5 cm x 1 cm on the left cheek; (v) 3 incised wounds of 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the chin; (vi) Incised wound 1.5 cm on the outer portion of right ear; (vii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the right eyebrow; (viii) 5 teeth of upper jaw were missing, blood clots were present in gum, fracture on the jaw was visible; (ix) There was a long fracture on the right portion of skull, it was depressed, depression has gone to the brain, right portion of the brain was pressed and brain membrane was ruptured & (x) There was dislocation in right radio ulna bone. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was coma, rupture of brain and excessive haemorrhage. It was homicidal in nature. His post-mortem report is Ex.-P/14. Following injuries were found on the dead body of deceased-Bhaskar-- (i) Lacerated wound on the right tempero-parietal region deep to the brain; (ii) There were many fractures on right tempero-parietal bone and multiple bone pieces had pierced into brain. Brain membrane was ruptured and there was laceration on the brain having blood clots. His post-mortem report is Ex.-P/14. Following injuries were found on the dead body of deceased-Bhaskar-- (i) Lacerated wound on the right tempero-parietal region deep to the brain; (ii) There were many fractures on right tempero-parietal bone and multiple bone pieces had pierced into brain. Brain membrane was ruptured and there was laceration on the brain having blood clots. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was coma on account of rupture of brain and the above injuries, sustained by deceased and it was homicidal in nature. His post-mortem report is Ex.-P/15-A. In further investigation, site plan (Ex.-P/3) was prepared by Halka Patwari-Parmatma Pandey (PW-3). The accused persons were taken into custody and their memorandum statements Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Act (Ex.-P/21, P/ 22 & P/23) were recorded and dandas & bahainga (a bamboo stick used for carrying crops on the shoulder) were seized at the instance of accused persons vide seizure memos Ex.-P/24, P/25 & P/26. After completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who in turn committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Ambikapur, where the trial was conducted and the Appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. 3. The conviction of the Appellants is based on eye-witness account of Bhuneshwar (PW-11) and Jugeshwar (PW-17). 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants have argued that the above 2 eye-witnesses and supporting witnesses- Sukhsagar (PW-13) and Pannalal (PW-14) are real brothers of the deceased persons, therefore, they are "interested witnesses" and the Sessions Court erred in relying on their testimonies. We are unable to accept the above contentions of learned Counsel for the Appellants. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SCW 1835, the Supreme Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. 5. In Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. & Ors. connected appeals (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Supreme Court further reiterated that there is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before court. The Supreme Court held that a close relative of deceased does not, per-se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before court only with that intention and not to further cause of justice. However, version of interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert evidence and circumstances of case clearly depict completion of chain of evidence pointing out guilt of accused, then statements of so-called "interested witnesses" can be relied upon by court. 6. The Supreme Court has said time and again that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants then argued that both the eyewitnesses have not seen the occurrence and they came to know about the murder of their 2 brothers in the next morning. We shall examine the above submissions in light of the evidence of 2 eye-witnesses. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants then argued that both the eyewitnesses have not seen the occurrence and they came to know about the murder of their 2 brothers in the next morning. We shall examine the above submissions in light of the evidence of 2 eye-witnesses. Bhuneshwar (PW-11) deposed that after treatment of Jugeshwar (PW-17) they send their 2 brothers on bicycles directing them to meet near Karji hotel. They started from Ambikapur at about 8.00 p.m. Jugeshwar (PW-17) was accompanying him on his Luna-mopad. All the brothers met at Karji hotel. Thereafter, he along with Jugeshwar (PW-17) followed them on their Luna-mopad. As soon as they reached near Ghunghutta Ghat, the Luna could not take their load therefore they had to get down. When they crossed the uproad (ghat), they heard the noise like- bachao-bachaoi. On this they started the Luna and saw in the head light of Luna and in the torch light that Ramratan, Munna @ Harishchandra and Shiva (all the Appellants) were assaulting deceased- Dhaneshwar by lathis. Appellant Shiva was chasing Bhaskar and Dhaneshwar was being assaulted by Munna and Ramratan. They were also holding knife. Seeing this, they returned on their Luna towards Ambikapur and stopped at Libramaod. They hidden themselves behind a mound (tila). They remained there for about one hour. During this time the accused persons crossed from mound (tila) side and went towards Ambikapur. Thereafter they immediately went to their house. While returning to their house they saw that Dhaneshwar was lying dead by the side of the road. After reaching to their village they had disclosed the above facts to Sukhsagar (PW-13) Nageshwari Bai (mother), Hirasai- Sarpanch and Kotwar-Somarsai. In the morning they returned towards the place of occurrence and found that the dead bodies of their brothers were lying near the road. They had received multiple injuries. The matter was reported to police and the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/13) was recorded. 8. Jugeshwar (PW-17) also deposed in similar fashion. He also claimed that, he had seen the Appellants assaulting the deceased persons in the head light of their mopad and also in the torch light. He deposed that Ramratan, Munna @ Harishchandra and Shiva Ram, all the 3, firstly assaulted Dhaneshwar. Thereafter they got Bhaskar fell down and assaulted him by knife and lathis. They were frightened, therefore, they returned back towards Ambikapur. 9. He deposed that Ramratan, Munna @ Harishchandra and Shiva Ram, all the 3, firstly assaulted Dhaneshwar. Thereafter they got Bhaskar fell down and assaulted him by knife and lathis. They were frightened, therefore, they returned back towards Ambikapur. 9. Jugeshwar (PW-17) admitted in the cross-examination that after getting down from the mopad, they were taking the mopad by pushing it. At the time of the incident, they were pushing the mopad and engine of the mopad was not in start condition. He denied the suggestion that the head light would not be on when the engine of the mopad will not in start condition. We note that mopad and torch were not seized by the police so as to find out as to whether the head light of the mopad was properly working and there was sufficient battery back-up in the torch allegedly held by these witnesses. 10. Parmatma Pandey (PW-3) was Halka Patwari, who has prepared the map (Ex.-P/3). The map was prepared on the instruction of the eyewitnesses. He deposed in Para-5 that the distance in between the 2 places, where the dead body of deceased Dhaneshwar was lying and the place from where the eye-witnesses saw the incident in mopad's light and torch light, was 83 metres. We have doubt that in a dark night a person would be able to witness the incident from a distance of 83 metres in the mopad and torch light. We have already said that neither the mopad nor the torch were seized. Therefore, evidence of these 2 witnesses remain untested on their claim of availability of mopad and torch light. 11. Indradeo (PW-8) deposed that deceased- Dhaneshwar was his brother-in-law (bhanoie) in village relation. He was resident of village Nawanagar which is an adjacent village of Kuniya Kala. He was the witness of seizure of bicycles and plastic chapels etc. from the place of occurrence.He deposed that on the next morning at about 6.30-6.45 a.m., Pannalal (PW-14), Bhuneshwar (PW-11), Jugeshwar (PW-17) and one Halwaha came to his house. Pannalal stated that "Bhaskar and Dhaneshwar (2 deceased persons) have not returned to the house in night. Let us go and search them." He came out of his house. He along with Pannatal (PW-14), Bhuneshwar (PW-11) and Jugeshwar (PW-17) made a search and went towards village Darima. Pannalal stated that "Bhaskar and Dhaneshwar (2 deceased persons) have not returned to the house in night. Let us go and search them." He came out of his house. He along with Pannatal (PW-14), Bhuneshwar (PW-11) and Jugeshwar (PW-17) made a search and went towards village Darima. They met a person on the way, who told them that a dead body is lying by the side of the road. Thereafter, they went towards that place and found that dead bodies of 2 deceased persons were lying near the road. He very clearly admitted that he along with Bhuneshwar (PW-11), Jugeshwar (PW-17) and Pannalal (PW-14) went to police station Ambikapur and the F.I.R. was lodged. Bhuneshwar (PW-11) has admitted in his cross-examination, Para-17, that in the morning, he met with indradeo (PW-8). He was brother-in-law (said) of deceased-Dhaneshwar. All of them had gone to the place of occurrence. Their Halwaha namely Bannu had also accompanied them. They had gone to the house of Indradeo for informing him about the incident. The admissions made by Bhuneshwar (PW-11) in Para-19 of his cross-examination completely demolished the case of the prosecution that the incident was witnessed by the above 2 eye-witnesses in the night. He admitted in Para-19 that "it is true that he himself, his brother Jugeshwar (PW-17), Indradeo (PW-8) and Bannu all were coming towards Darima searching his brothers". If they had witnessed the incident in the night, there was no question for searching the brothers as above in the morning. 12. Ramkumar (PW-5) is elder brother of Indradeo (PW-8). He also deposed in Para-5 that in the morning Pannalal etc. had visited their house and had taken Indradeo (PW-8) for searching their brothers. Later on he came to know that Dhaneshwar has been murdered. This shows that the 2 eye-witnesses had visited the house of Indradeo (PW-8) in the morning and they had requested for searching their brothers. 13. Apart from the above, the conducts of the 2 eye-witnesses are also suspicious. When they were knowing that the dead bodies of brothers are lying on the road at a lonely place, they would have made arrangements for watching the dead bodies in the night or they would have made efforts to see that the bodies are not destroyed by animals or dogs etc. When they were knowing that the dead bodies of brothers are lying on the road at a lonely place, they would have made arrangements for watching the dead bodies in the night or they would have made efforts to see that the bodies are not destroyed by animals or dogs etc. Neither the eye-witnesses nor the other 2 brothers namely Sukhsagar (PW-13) and Pannalal (PW-14) made any effort to come back to the place of occurrence in the night. Even they did not make hue and cry in the village. The eyewitnesses have said that the accused persons had gone towards Ambikapur, therefore, there was no reason to remain in fear. In normal human conduct, the above eye-witnesses and the other brothers would have made arrangement for watching the dead bodies in the night which they did not do. 14. We also find that the F.I.R. was lodged in the next morning. If the incident was witnessed in the night at about 10-11.00 p.m.; the witnesses had gone to their village and had disclosed the story to other brothers and to some other villagers as they have claimed, they would have gone to lodge the report in the night itself. It is their own case that they were having a Luna mopad in their family. Therefore, it was not difficult for them to go to the police station in the night. When we examine the delay in light of the evidence of Indradeo (PW-8) and Ramkumar (PW-5), it appears that the above witnesses came to know about the murder of the deceased persons in the morning and then only the report was lodged. 15. It also comes in the evidence of eye-witnesses and Patwari that the place of occurrence was not completely lonely, and Uraon-Basti was at a distance of 8-10 zaribs from the place of occurrence. Libra Village is also situated at a distance of half kilometer from the said place. No hue and cry was made by eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence while they were watching the incident and even they did not go for help to the above nearby places. This all creates doubt on the testimonies of the above 2 eye-witnesses. Bannu has been examined as DW-1. He had also deposed that they were searching the deceased persons in the morning. This all creates doubt on the testimonies of the above 2 eye-witnesses. Bannu has been examined as DW-1. He had also deposed that they were searching the deceased persons in the morning. His presence cannot be denied because Bhuneshwar (PW-11), Indradeo (PW-8) and Ramkumar (PW-5) all have admitted that Bannu was accompanying them in the morning. Nothing material has been brought in his cross-examination. 16. In appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, we are of the view that the presence of the 2 eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was highly suspicious; their testimonies were not fully reliable; their conduct was suspicious and the entire case of the prosecution was demolished on the admission of Bhuneshwar (PW-11) in Para-19 in which he admitted that in the morning they were searching their brothers along with Jugeshwar (PW-17), Indradeo (PW-8) and Bannu (DW-1). Therefore, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the Appellants on the testimonies of the above eyewitnesses who were the real brothers of the deceased persons. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the Appellants Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in 2 counts) are set-aside. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellants 1 & 2 were arrested on 28.8.90. They were released on bail on 21.1.2003 and were rearrested on 8.2.2010. Presently they are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appellant No. 3 was arrested on 29.8.90 and was released on bail on 16.4.2002. Presently he is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Appeal Allowed.