JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the convict from jail against the judgment dated 29.07.2005 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Circuit Court, Charaideo at Sonari convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. Heard Mrs. R.D. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 12.01.2004 at about 3.30 p.m. Sri Thumpu Murmu (PW 1), Ramu Hemrom (PW 2), Mohan Murmu (PW 3) and Rajen Murmu (PW 4) brought the appellant Romesh Murmu to Borhat Police Station and handed him over to police with a dao. A written ejahar (Ext.1) was lodged by said Thumpu Murmu with the In-Charge, Bar-hat Police Station alleging that on the same day at 3.30 p.m. appellant hacked Ganesh Hasda with a dao. The Officer-In-Charge (PW 12) of the police station made GD Entry No. 219 dated 12.1.2004 and registered a crime being Barhat P.S. Case No. 3 of 2004 under Section 302, IPC against the appellant Ramesh Murmu. After medical-examination the appellant was arrested and the persons who produced the appellant at the police station were interrogated and their statements were recorded. The dao (M.Ext.1) was seized vide a, seizure list (Ext. 2). The I.O. visited the place of occurrence. He found the dead body on the pull-cart in the courtyard of Sri Padum Hasda (PW 6). The inquest could not be held on the same day due to darkness and the dead body was under the supervision of police and VDP at the courtyard of Padum Hasda. On the next day the I.O. held inquest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3). The I.O. also prepared a rough sketch map (Ext.8) of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence. He also seized two flexible electric wires produced by witness Smti Niru Hasda (PW 5) vide seizure list (Ext-9). 3). The I.O. also prepared a rough sketch map (Ext.8) of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence. He also seized two flexible electric wires produced by witness Smti Niru Hasda (PW 5) vide seizure list (Ext-9). The I.O. sent Smti Niru Hasda (PW 5) wife of the deceased to Barhat PHC for medical examination and later forwarded her to the Court of SDJM for recording her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Her statement was accordingly recorded by a Magistrate (PW 13). The dead body was sent to Sivasagar Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. The post mortem report of the deceased was collected and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 17.3.2004. 3. The jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge on receipt of the case on committal made over the case to Additional Sessions Judge for trial. On perusal and consideration of documents and materials made available on record, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302/323, IPC on 26.8.2004. The appellant on being read over and explained denied the allegation and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the aforesaid charge, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the I.O. and medical officer. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined and his statements were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. On the basis of evidence on record and the appellant's statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 5. There is some peculiarity in the present case. PW 1, Thumpu Murmu is the father of the accused appellant. He himself took his accused son, Ramesh Murmu and produced him before police station accompanied by some local people. He himself got the ejahar written and submitted in the police station. The 5 line short ejahar (Ext. 1) is very specific and clear. It says humble submission is that at about 3.30 p.m. today, my son Ramesh Murmu killed my elder sister's (husband's) son Ganesh Hasda by cutting with a dao in front of his house. Now, I produce Ramesh Murmu in your P.S. (the Barhat thana) along with the dao...." He supported the statements made in the FIR while he entered in the witness box as PW 1. Now, I produce Ramesh Murmu in your P.S. (the Barhat thana) along with the dao...." He supported the statements made in the FIR while he entered in the witness box as PW 1. Before the trial Court, he stated that accused Ramesh Murmu was his son and deceased Ganesh Das was his nephew. He categorically stated that "Ganesh died in a mutual cutting incident that took place with Ramesh." The incident took place at about 3.30 p.m. He was working in the garden and on being informed he came home and found his son Ramesh at home and Ganesh lying on their Courtygrd in injured condition. He could see the cut injury in the neck of Ganesh. The injured Ganesh was taken to Garden Hospital but he died on the way. His son Ramesh told him that following a quarrel he cut Ganesh. So Ramesh was taken and handed over to Barhat Police Station. He was accompanied by Mohan Munda (PW 3) and Ramu Hemrom. The accused appellant produced the dao which he used in assaulting diseased Ganesh. The said dao was produced in the police station along with the appellant Ramesh. In cross examination he said that he was not the witness of the incident. His house and the house of Ganesh are contiguous to each other and there is no fencing in between. He denied the suggestion put by the defence counsel that accused Ramesh did not confess before him to have cut deceased Ganesh after a quarrel. 6. PW 4, Sri Rajen Murmu is the son of PW 1. He is the younger brother of the accused Ramesh Murmu. In his deposition he stated that the elder brother Ramesh killed Ganesh by 'cutting' and the village people kept Ramesh in captivity. As advised by the villagers, he along with his father Mohan Murmu (PW 3), took Ramesh and handed him over to Barhat Police Station along with a dao which was seized by police. He put his thumb impression on the seizure list. He clearly stated that the dao belongs to accused, Ramesh. Like PW 1, he also clarified in cross-examination that he was not a witness to the occurrence. However, he stated that he produced the dao (M.Ext. 1) to the public from their house. He further stated that the dao was not stained with blood. 7. He clearly stated that the dao belongs to accused, Ramesh. Like PW 1, he also clarified in cross-examination that he was not a witness to the occurrence. However, he stated that he produced the dao (M.Ext. 1) to the public from their house. He further stated that the dao was not stained with blood. 7. PW 3, Sri Mohan Murmu is the cousin brother of accused Ramesh, being the son of his maternal uncle. He stated that as per advice of the village people he accompanied Thumpu Murmu (PW 1), Rajen Murmu (PW 4) and Ramu Hemron to hand over accused Ramesh to Barhat Police Station along with dao which was used in the incident, According to him the said dao was seized by police and he put his signature thereon as a seizure witness. He further stated that while accused Ramesh was being taken to police station he stated before them that he had altercation with deceased Ganesh for a flexible electric wire and that he hacked Ganesh with a dao from the opposite side of a fencing. In cross-examination this witness stated that accused Ramesh was carrying the dao in his hand when he was taken to police station. However, unlike PWs I and 4 he stated that there were blood marks on the dao and it was taken wrapped in a piece of cloth. When suggested he denied that accused did not confess his guilt before them. He also denied the suggestion that they handed over Ramesh to the police station by taking him there forcefully. 8. PW 2, Ramu Hemrom is also a witness who accompanied PW I,3 and 4 while taking the accused to the police station. He stated that he wrote the ejahar (Ext. I) as stated by PW 1 on which PW 1 put his left thumb impression. He also stated that police seized the dao and he put his signature as a seizure witness on the seizure list. In cross-examination he also clarified that he has no personal knowledge as to whether Ramesh used the said dao in cutting Ganesh. He further stated that the villagers handed over the dao to him and the same was wrapped in a piece of cloth. 9. Sri Padum Hasda was examined as PW 6. He stated that the accused Ramesh was the son of his wife's younger brother. He further stated that the villagers handed over the dao to him and the same was wrapped in a piece of cloth. 9. Sri Padum Hasda was examined as PW 6. He stated that the accused Ramesh was the son of his wife's younger brother. He was inside the house at the time of occurrence. His daughter-in-law Niru Hasda (PW 5), mother of the diseased came and told him that Ramesh had cut Ganesh. When he came to the place of occurrence he found Ganesh lying near the boundary fencing. He found injury on the neck of Ganesh. He found injury near the right thumb of Niru, who on being asked told him that she sustained injury in a bid to catch hold the knife from Ramesh's hand who injured Ganesh. Thereafter Ganesh was taken to Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. He further stated that Ramesh was captured by villagers and he was handed over to police. The police came to the place of occurrence on the following day and held inquest over the dead body of Ganesh. He put thumb impression on the inquest report as a witness. Police also seized some electric wires (M.Ext.2) from the house of Ganesh. 10. Entering the witness box as PW 7, Sri Dinesh Hasda, younger brother of the deceased Ganesh stated that on being informed about the incident, when he returned home, he found Ganesh lying injured near the boundary fencing of Ramesh. He could see injury on the neck of the deceased. He also saw injury near the thumb of Niru Hasda. On an enquiry he could know from her that she sustained cut injury while trying to catch hold of the dao from the hands of Ramesh. Injured Ganesh was taken to Garden Hospital where he was declared dead by doctors and the dead body was brought home. The police came to their house and held the inquest and prepared a report on which he put his thumb impression. 11. None of the aforesaid witnesses is an eye witness to the incident of assault by the appellant with a dao on the deceased. They are just witnesses to the capture of the appellant by some villagers, taking him to a police station on the advice of the villagers and producing him before the police station along with the dao allegedly used in committing the crime. They are just witnesses to the capture of the appellant by some villagers, taking him to a police station on the advice of the villagers and producing him before the police station along with the dao allegedly used in committing the crime. The said witnesses were present in the police station alongwith the appellant. The accused was arrested and the dao was seized by police in the police station. The aforesaid witnesses have adduced corroborated evidence on the said facts except a contradiction in regard to presence of blood stain on the dao produced before the police station. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty and convict him under Section 302, IPC unless their evidence is supported by strong circumstantial evidence or ocular evidence on the actual act of assault by the accused on the deceased. 12. The prosecution produced and examined Niru Hasda, the wife of the deceased, as PW 5. From the witness box, she stated that on the day of occurrence her husband returned home from work at about 12 noon and when he did not see the electric wire inside the house enquired her about the same and when she told him that Ramesh had taken the same, her husband asked Ramesh as to why he had taken away the electric wire. When Ramesh told that he took the electric wire asking Dinesh (PW 7) but on enquiry when her husband learnt from Dinesh that Ramesh did not take the electric wire with the 'approval' of Dinesh an altercation took place between her husband Ganesh and accused Ramesh. She further stated that Ramesh dealt the dao blow from the side of his compound cutting the neck of her husband who was in their side across the fencing and on being hit, her husband fell down. She sustained cut injury on the side of right thump when she held the knife that was held by Ramesh. Her injured husband was shifted to Hospital in a pushcart. Police seized the electric wire from her house, which was returned by accused Ramesh to her husband just before the questioning. She put her thumb impression on the seizure list (M.Ext.2). Police interrogated and recorded her statements. Her statement was also recorded by a Magistrate. Her injured husband was shifted to Hospital in a pushcart. Police seized the electric wire from her house, which was returned by accused Ramesh to her husband just before the questioning. She put her thumb impression on the seizure list (M.Ext.2). Police interrogated and recorded her statements. Her statement was also recorded by a Magistrate. In her cross-examination, she confirmed that the villagers came her house and denied the suggestion that Ramesh had not injured her husband Ganesh by cutting. 13. PW 12, Meheruddin Ahmed was the investigating officer of the case. He testified that he was the Officer-In-Charge of Barhat Police Station at the relevant time. On 12.1.2004, Thumpu Murmu, handed over his son Ramesh Munnu, the accused, with a dao and filed an ejahar (Ext.1). At that time, PW 2, 3 and 4 were also present in the police station. He seized the dao as produced by the said witnesses, recorded the statement of the informant and also the other witnesses, sent the accused for medical examination and arrested him. During investigation he visited the place of occurrence, held inquest, drew sketch map of the place of occurrence and sent the dead body to Sivasagar Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. He seized two flexible electric wires on being produced by PW S wife of the deceased. He also forwarded PW 5 to the SDJM for recording her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., collected the post mortem examination report and submitted the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation. He testified that witness Ramu Hemrom (PW 2) stated before him that the accused told him that for flexible electric wires altercation ensued with the deceased Ganesh and accused and he was cut with a dao from other side of the boundary fencing. PW 13, Sri Dibajyoti Rajkhowa was the Magistrate who testified that he recorded the statement of Smti Niru Hasda (PW 5) as per order of the learned SDJM which is marked as Ext. 1, on which the RTI of Niru Hasda was obtained by the Bench Assistant. 14. We have read the aforesaid statements of Niru Hasda under Section 164, Cr.P.C. with her deposition made before the learned trial Court and we find that she maintained the statements made by her before the Magistrate while giving evidence before the learned trial Court. No contradiction is found in the said statement and the evidence of PW 5. 15. 14. We have read the aforesaid statements of Niru Hasda under Section 164, Cr.P.C. with her deposition made before the learned trial Court and we find that she maintained the statements made by her before the Magistrate while giving evidence before the learned trial Court. No contradiction is found in the said statement and the evidence of PW 5. 15. The appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court put several questions drawing his attention to the incriminating evidence given by the witnesses. He answered almost all the questions in the affirmative except on certain questions. In reply to question No. 15 he answered that he did not know about sustaining two injuries by deceased Ganesh. He however, replied firmly that he caused only one injury. 16. PW 10, Dr. Hazarika deposed to confirm that he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ganesh on 13.1.2004 at 3 p.m. while he was working as SDM & HO at Sivasagar Civil Hospital. He prepared the post mortem report (Ext.5) on which he put his signature, Ext.5 (1). He testified that he found fresh rigor mortis on the dead-body with the following injuries- (i) incised wound 31/2" x 3" deep x 2" wide on left side of the neck, (ii) incised wound 2" long (2" x 2" x 1") in situated 1 above the injury No. 1. In his opinion the cause of death of the victim is due to shock, haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained. 17. The post mortem report Ext.5 and the evidence of PW 10 clearly proved that the deceased received two grievous injuries on the left side of the neck which are sufficient to cause death of the injured. As per statement of the appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. he dealt only one dao blow on the deceased and thereby he tried to explain that the single blow which he dealt was not sufficient to cause death to the injured or he tried to say that other dao blow was dealt by some other person. The said defence would not come to his assistance unless he adduces sufficient proof that he gave only one dao blow and the other blow was given by someone else. The said defence would not come to his assistance unless he adduces sufficient proof that he gave only one dao blow and the other blow was given by someone else. On the face of evidence of sole eye witness PW 5, which could not be shattered by the defence in cross-examination, it cannot be accepted in evidence as a proof of innocence of the appellant. The medical evidence is found to be cogent and indisputable so far it relates to injuries found on the deceased. It is not unlikely that the appellant who was at the heat of the moment struck the dao blows more than once on the deceased and also could not remember as to how many blows he dealt on the deceased. The contradiction sought to be pointed out by the appellant and the possible benefit sought to be derived from such contradiction, is unfounded and in fact no benefit of doubt could be given to the appellant. Moreover the medical officer, PW 10 clearly stated in his evidence that both the injuries are "independently sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature" He further opined that the said injury could be caused by the material Ext. 1, i.e. the crime weapon "dao" and the said dao fits in the injuries received by the deceased. The contradiction pointed out in regard to the injuries is just a creation of the appellant as a matter of afterthought defence. Even if it is taken seriously it would not affect the prosecution case in view of appellant's admission that he gave only one dao blow and as per medical evidence either of the blows is independently sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 18. PW 9 is Dr. Rehanuddin Seikh who gave treatment to P.W.5, wife of the deceased, who claimed to have received injury on finger in a bid to snatch away the dao from the appellant's hand during tussle. He said that he medically examined PW 5 on 13.1.2004 at about 3 p.m. at Barhat Mini PHC, and found one lacerated wound on her web of right thumb and index finger size 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm x (approx.) without any active bleeding. Injury was simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. 19. He said that he medically examined PW 5 on 13.1.2004 at about 3 p.m. at Barhat Mini PHC, and found one lacerated wound on her web of right thumb and index finger size 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm x (approx.) without any active bleeding. Injury was simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. 19. The defence may take a view that sole eye witness PW 5 is an interested witness inasmuch as she is the wife of the deceased and her evidence cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellant. There is no rule that the evidence of interested and related witness cannot be accepted in evidence for conviction. In this regard we would like to refer C"ourselves to a decision of the Apex Court in the State of U.P. v. Vinod Kumar and another, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1011 wherein it is held that mere interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding or rejecting the sworn testimony nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested witness can never form the basis of conviction. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested or related witnesses should be subject to a very careful scrutiny and extreme care and caution and if on such scrutiny the testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable then that evidence may be relied upon in the circumstances of a particular case to base a conviction thereon. In the above cited case, therefore, held that the conviction on the basis of sole testimony of interested eye witness is to be accepted as valid when the same is fully corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. In fact it is found in the present case that except the official witnesses, all other witnesses are related and what is to be noted is that the father of the accused himself lodged the FIR and adduced evidence against the appellant. The circumstantial evidence as discussed earlier have been found fully corroborating the evidence of sole eye witness, Smti Niru Hasda, PW 5. In our view the principle laid down in the above cited case can safely be applied to this case also. 20. The circumstantial evidence as discussed earlier have been found fully corroborating the evidence of sole eye witness, Smti Niru Hasda, PW 5. In our view the principle laid down in the above cited case can safely be applied to this case also. 20. The appellant, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case has no scope for taking shelter under the law of self defence for the reason that as per evidence on record, he was the person who held a dao in his hands and attacked the unarmed deceased. The deceased did not cross over the boundary fencing to attack the appellant. As per evidence it is rather the appellant who assaulted the deceased by dao from across the boundary fence causing serious injuries on the person of the deceased. Whatever grave provocation that might have been created by the deceased, who was not armed, there is no justification for the appellant to attack him by a sharp dao for self defence and the incident could have been avoided, had there been restraint from appellant's side by not using the dao. 21. On appreciation of the entire evidence and the materials on record we come to a conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. In our view no interference with the impugned conviction and sentence is called for. The impugned conviction and sentence stands upheld. The appeal stands dismissed. The appellant shall serve the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. Before parting with the record, we record our words of appreciation for the legal assistance rendered by Mrs. R.D. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae in this case. We direct the State Legal Services Authority to pay her an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as legal fee.