JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 7-J/04, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 31.10.2003 at about 8:55 p.m., Kuldip Singh (deceased), son of Shri Ran Singh, reported at Police Station, Jawali vide rapat roznamcha No. 27, dated 31.10.2003, Ex. PW-6/A that he was a resident of village Sihal and was residing adjacent to the house of one Nirmla Devi and they have their common Courtyard. On 31.10.2003, at about 5:00 p.m., he, his wife and his children were present at home and they were removing some soil from their Courtyard. In the meantime, Nirmla Devi and her two sons, namely, Baljit Singh and Balbir Singh asked them to vacate the house. Nirmla Devi and her two sons, namely, Baljit Singh and Balbir Singh, who were armed with dandas, started beating him. Nirmla Devi gave him beating with a wooden piece used for washing the clothes (Dhonu), Ex. P-1. He sustained injuries on his head, feet and other parts of the body. The blood also started oozing out from the injuries. His daughter, Sarika (PW-5) was also present on the spot. She was also given beatings by them. In the meantime, neighbours came on the spot and thereafter, Nirmla Devi and her two sons went to their house. After some time, Urmila Devi (PW-6) also reached the spot. She arranged a Vehicle and they came to the Police Station to report the matter. Kuldip singh (deceased) was taken to hospital for medical examination. He was examined by PW-1, Dr. Sucha Singh, who issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. Nirmla Devi also visited the Police Station on the same day at about 8:30 p.m. Her report was also entered in Police Chowki, Fatehpur vide rapat No. 14, Ex. PW-15/A. According to her, Kuldip Singh was excavating part of his Courtyard and he was threatening to excavate the same forcibly. Sucha Singh, who issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. Nirmla Devi also visited the Police Station on the same day at about 8:30 p.m. Her report was also entered in Police Chowki, Fatehpur vide rapat No. 14, Ex. PW-15/A. According to her, Kuldip Singh was excavating part of his Courtyard and he was threatening to excavate the same forcibly. When she tried to stop Kuldip Singh from doing so, he became furious and tried to give her hammer blow, however, she rescued herself and Kuldip Singh due to his own force struck with wall of the Courtyard and fell down on the stones. Kuldip Singh was discharged from Jawali hospital and was referred to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala by the doctor concerned. He died on his way to Dharamshala. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. PW-2, Dr. Suman Saxena conducted the post mortem and issued port mortem report Ex. PW-2/A. The photographs of the dead body were also taken vide Ex. PW- 12/A-1 to Ex. PW-12/A-6. The Investigating Officer also took into possession from Urmila Devi, wife of the deceased shirt Ex. P-6, pajama, Ex. P-7 and under vest, Ex. P-8 having blood stains of deceased. He also recovered wooden Fatti, Ex. P-2 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Baljit Singh, Ex. PW-7/A, the I.O. has recovered hammer Ex. P-5 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B. The I.O. has also recovered a Dhonu (wooden piece) Ex. P-1, which was produced by Nirmla Devi. It was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A. The F.I.R. Ex. PW-16/A was recorded. The challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 2. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons, the accused were also examined u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. acquitted The respondents. Hence, this appeal by the State. 3. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. According to him, the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. 4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 15.07.2004. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 6. According to him, the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. 4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 15.07.2004. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 6. In this case, the material witnesses are PW-1, Dr. Sucha Singh, PW-2, Dr. Suman Sexana, PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi, PW-5, Sarika and PW-6, Smt. Urmila Devi, W/o. late Shri Kuldeep Singh. 7. PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi deposed that on 31.10.2003 at about 5:30 p.m., she and her sister-in-law (Devrani), Urmila Devi (PW-4) went to tap to fetch water. They heard noise in the house of Kuldip Singh. Thereafter, they went to the house of Kuldip Singh. Bablu (Balbir Singh), Muna (Baljit Singh) and their mother Nirmla accused were beating Kuldip Singh and Sarika (PW-5) was rescuing her father from the clutches of the accused. Nirmla Devi was armed with Thapi, Ex. P-1, Muna was armed with hathora/ hammer and Bablu was armed with patcher (a wooden plank). She, Urmila and one more lady rescued Kuldip Singh from the clutches of the accused and then they left for their house. They noticed injuries on the head of Kuldip Singh and blood was oozing from his head. In her cross-examination, she has testified that when she reached the spot, she saw Kuldip Singh lying on the spot. She also testified that when she reached the house, they saw deceased bleeding from the head. The sewing machine was lying hurtled. She denied the suggestion that when they reached the spot, the accused persons and deceased were exchanging hot words. She self stated that the fight was going on and they separated them and that they went to their house and accused also went to their house. She has also testified that she saw Muna (Baljit Singh) inflicting one injury on the left leg of deceased with hammer. She has denied the suggestion that neither Nirmla Devi was armed with Thapi, Ex.-P1 nor accused Bablu (Balbir Singh) was armed with patcher, Ex. P-1 and Munna (Baljit Singh) with hammer, Ex. P-5. 8. The statement of PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi has been corroborated by Smt. Urmila Devi (PW-4). According to her, they heard noise from the house of father of Sarika. P-1 and Munna (Baljit Singh) with hammer, Ex. P-5. 8. The statement of PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi has been corroborated by Smt. Urmila Devi (PW-4). According to her, they heard noise from the house of father of Sarika. She and her Jethani, Smt. Kanta Devi (PW-3) went to the house of the deceased. All the three accused Munna, Bablu and Nirmla were giving beatings to Kuldip Singh. PW-5, Sarika was rescuing her father from the clutches of the accused. They also rescued the father of Sarika from the clutches of the accused persons. They also noticed injuries on the head of Kuldip from where the blood was oozing. According to her, accused Nirmla was armed with Thapi, Munna was having hammer and Bablu was having patcher (wooden plank). In her cross-examination, she has stated that Kuldip was lying on the spot. The blood was oozing out from his head. She has admitted that Sarika was trying to pick up her father. She denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place in her presence. According to her, they were fighting with each other. She has denied the suggestion that she has not seen any of the accused inflicting any injury on the person of deceased Kuldip. She saw Muna holding hammer, Bablu patcher and Nirmla Thapi. Bablu inflicted injury on the head and thigh of deceased. 9. PW-5, Sarika is an eye witness. She is the daughter of deceased Kuldip Singh. According to her, she and her father were excavating the soil from their Courtyard in order to make it pucca. Her father was excavating with the help of hathora (hammer) and he was collecting the soil with the help of wooden patcher. They have a common Courtyard with the accused. Their foot sewing machine was lying just on the corner from where the Courtyard of the accused started. Her father slightly pushed the foot sewing machine towards the Courtyard of accused person, so that it may not got damaged by hammer blow. Balbir, Nirmla and Baljit Singh came there and they insisted that their foot sewing machine will remain at the same point. Accused Balbir Singh pushed the foot sewing stand on his father. In the meantime, Baljit alias Munna, younger son of accused Nirmla also came there. He snatched hammer, Ex. P-5 from the hands of his father and started giving beating to his father with the same. Accused Balbir Singh pushed the foot sewing stand on his father. In the meantime, Baljit alias Munna, younger son of accused Nirmla also came there. He snatched hammer, Ex. P-5 from the hands of his father and started giving beating to his father with the same. Nirmla Devi accused came with Dhoni Ex. P-1 and Balbir picked up the wooden patcher Ex.-P2 and they also started beating his father with Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. She raised alarm to rescue her father. She also tried to rescue her father and in that process, the accused also inflicted injury on her person. In the meantime, Kanta Devi, Urmila and Nisha Kumari also came on the spot. They rescued her father from being dragged towards their house. She rang up to her mother. Her father sustained multiple injuries on his body due to blows given by the accused persons. According to her, her father sustained injuries on his head, right side ribs and on the back side of legs. Her father died on the next day. Her mother handed over the blood smeared clothes of her father, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. The clothes and wooden patcher, Ex. P-2 were taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A, which bears her signature. Kameez, Ex. P-6, Pajma, Ex. P-7 and Baniyan, Ex. P-8 were the same which were worn by her father. During investigation of the case, accused Baljit Singh produced hammer, Ex. P-5 from the shelf of his house, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-5/B. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her father was suffering from T.B., but he had already undergone treatment. She has denied the suggestion that before PW-3 and PW-4 reached the spot, her father had received injuries due to fall. She self stated that her father did not receive any injury due to fall, but he received the same due to beatings given by the accused. According to her, her father was given hammer blows on his head, ribs, back and legs and by the time, PW-3 and PW-4 reached, her father had already received 10/12 hammer blows, which were inflicted by accused Baljit Singh alias Munna. Accused Balbir alias Bablu has also given similar number of blows on different parts of her father's body. According to her, her father was given hammer blows on his head, ribs, back and legs and by the time, PW-3 and PW-4 reached, her father had already received 10/12 hammer blows, which were inflicted by accused Baljit Singh alias Munna. Accused Balbir alias Bablu has also given similar number of blows on different parts of her father's body. Accused Nirmla also gave similar number of blows, however, she did not count the blows given by accused Nirmla Devi. She has denied the suggestion that her father has received injuries on his body by fall. 10. PW-6, Smt. Urmila Devi is wife of Kuldip Singh (deceased). According her, on 31.10.2003 at about 5:30 p.m., her daughter Sarika informed her by telephone that her husband had been beaten up badly by accused Nirmla and her two sons, namely, Baljit and Balbir with fati, Dhonu and hathora, due to which, her husband received injuries on his person. She came to the spot and noticed that blood was oozing out from the head of her husband and there were so many other injuries on his person. She managed a vehicle and her husband was brought to CHC, Jawali for treatment. They have also gone to the Police Station before going to the hospital. Her husband has narrated the manner in which the incident has taken place on 31.10.2003 at about 5:00 p.m. The doctor of C.H.C., Jawali referred her husband to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. Her husband succumbed to his injuries when they were on the way to Dharamshala. 11. PW-7, Sh. Bhag Singh has signed the disclosure statement Ex. PW-7/A, whereby hammer, Ex. P-5 was recovered. PW-8, Sh. Tilak Raj has signed the seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A, whereby Fati, Ex. P-2 was recovered. PW-9, Sh. Fateh Chand has also signed memo, Ex. PW-5/B, whereby hathora/ hammer, Ex. P-5 was recovered. 12. PW-10, Subhash Chand has signed memo Ex. PW-10/A, whereby Dhonu, Ex. P-1 was recovered. The photographs have been taken by PW-13, Sh. Swaran Singh. The report lodged by accused Nirmla Jaswal, Ex. PW-15/A was recorded by PW-15, Sh. Kuldeep Singh. The matter was investigated by PW-17, Sh. S.K. Thakur. 13. Kuldeep Singh (deceased) was medically examined on 31.10.2003 by Dr. Sucha Singh. He issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. According to him, injuries No. 4 and 5 were simple. Swaran Singh. The report lodged by accused Nirmla Jaswal, Ex. PW-15/A was recorded by PW-15, Sh. Kuldeep Singh. The matter was investigated by PW-17, Sh. S.K. Thakur. 13. Kuldeep Singh (deceased) was medically examined on 31.10.2003 by Dr. Sucha Singh. He issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. According to him, injuries No. 4 and 5 were simple. He did not give his opinion regarding injuries No. 1, 2 and 3, as the patient was referred for X-Ray and C.T. Scan, which was not produced before him. According to him, the injuries mentioned in M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A were possible with dhonu (washing stick of wood) and wooden plank (Ex. P-2). According to him, injury No. 1 was possible with blow of hammer, Ex. P-5. He also testified that the fracture on the ribs was possible with the blow of hammer, as mentioned in M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. He denied the suggestion that a person suffering from T.B. under all circumstances will have weak liver and lungs. He further stated that if the patient has not taken complete treatment, he may have weak lungs, but not liver. According to him, the injuries No. 2 to 4 found on the person of patient could be the result of fall on hard irregular surface with sufficient force. He denied the suggestion that if a person while removing foot sewing machine falls on the person, he may sustain injuries like injuries No. 2 to 4 mentioned in M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that injury No. 1 was possible if a person struck with a wooden object. 14. PW-2, Dr. Suman Sexana has conducted the post mortem. The post mortem report is Ex. PW-2/A. According to PW-2, the cause of death in this case was shock and hemorrhage and surgical emphysema due to multiple injuries over body and testis and ribs fracture and injury to liver. The probable time between injury and death was within 48 hours and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. The injuries mentioned in the post mortem report Ex. PW-2/A were possible with the blow of dhonu, Ex. P-1 (wooden plank), hammer, Ex. P-5 and also with dandas and kicks and fist blows. Even injury on the liver/ testicals, as detailed in PMR Ex. PW-2/A were possible with the blow of Ex. P-1 and P-5. 15. The injuries mentioned in the post mortem report Ex. PW-2/A were possible with the blow of dhonu, Ex. P-1 (wooden plank), hammer, Ex. P-5 and also with dandas and kicks and fist blows. Even injury on the liver/ testicals, as detailed in PMR Ex. PW-2/A were possible with the blow of Ex. P-1 and P-5. 15. Learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons, primarily on the premise that there is a variance in the statement of Kuldip Singh recorded vide Ex. PW-6/A and the statements of witnesses, i.e., PW-3, PW-4, PVV-5 and PW-6. According to the learned trial Court the recoveries of weapon of offence have not been duly proved and statements of PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi and PW-5, Sarika did not inspire confidence. According to the learned trial Court, Nisha Devi, who was present on the spot as per the statement PW-5, Sarika Devi should have been examined by the prosecution. 16. We are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has misread the entire evidence while acquitting the accused persons, 17. PW-5, Sarika Devi is an eye witness. She in clear terms has deposed that her father was given beatings by the accused persons. According to her, accused Baljit Singh (Munna) has snatched hammer, Ex. P-5 from the hands of her father and started giving beatings to his father with the same. Nirmla Devi accused came with Dhoni, Ex. P-1 and accused Balbir picked up the wooden patcher, Ex. P-2. They also started giving beatings to her father with Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. She has tried to rescue her father. In the meantime, Kanta Devi (PW-3) and Urmila Devi (PW-4) also reached on the spot. She has informed her mother on telephone. In her cross-examination, she has categorically testified that by the time PW-3 and PW-4 reached on the spot, her father had already received 10/12 hammer blows which were inflicted by accused Baljit Singh @ Munna. Similarly, Balbir @ Bablu has given similar number of blows on the body of her father. 18. PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi has testified that when they reached on the spot, accused Nirmla was armed with Thapi, Munna was armed with hathora/hammer and accused Bablu was armed with father (a wooden plank). She and PW-4, Smt. Urmila Devi saved Kuldip Singh from the clutches of accused. 18. PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi has testified that when they reached on the spot, accused Nirmla was armed with Thapi, Munna was armed with hathora/hammer and accused Bablu was armed with father (a wooden plank). She and PW-4, Smt. Urmila Devi saved Kuldip Singh from the clutches of accused. She has denied the suggestion that the accused persons and deceased were exchanging hot words when they reached the spot. She self stated that the fight was going on and they have separated them. 19. The statement of PW-3 has been supported by PW-4, Smt. Urmila Devi. She has also seen accused persons Munna, Bablu and Nirmla giving beatings to Kuldip Singh and his daughter Sarika trying to save him. 20. PW-6, Smt. Urmila Devi has also deposed that she was informed by her daughter on telephone and she reached on the spot. When she reached on the spot, she noticed injuries on the body of her husband and the blood was oozing out from his head. 21. The statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are probablised with the statement of PW-1, Dr. Sucha Singh, who has issued M.L.C., Ex. PW-1/A. According to him, the injury No. 1 was possible with the blow of hammer, Ex. P-5 and the fractures on the ribs was possible with the blow of hammer, as mentioned in M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. He has stated that it is not necessary that in all the cases where a person is suffering from T.B., his liver and lungs would be weak. 22. According to PW-2, Dr. Suman Sexana, Kuldip Singh has died due to shock and hemorrhage and surgical emphysema due to multiple injuries over body and testis and ribs fracture and injury to liver. The probable time between injury and death is within 48 hours and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. According to him, the injuries mentioned in Ex. PW-2/A were possible with the blow of dhonu, Ex. P-1 (wooden plank), hammer, Ex. P-5 and also with dandas, kicks and first blows. According to him, even the injury on the liver/testicals as detailed in PMR Ex. PW-2/A was possible with the blow of Ex. P-1 to P-5. We have also gone through the photographs proved on record by PW-13, Sh. Swaran Singh. These injuries match with the description given in the M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A and post mortem report Ex. According to him, even the injury on the liver/testicals as detailed in PMR Ex. PW-2/A was possible with the blow of Ex. P-1 to P-5. We have also gone through the photographs proved on record by PW-13, Sh. Swaran Singh. These injuries match with the description given in the M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A and post mortem report Ex. PW-2/A. The recoveries of Ex.-P1, Ex.-P2 and Ex.-P5 have been duly proved by PW-7, Sh. Bhag Singh, PW-8, Sh. Tilak Raj, PW-9, Sh. Fateh Chand and PW-10, Subhash Chand. The statement of PW-5, Sarika has been duly corroborated by PW-1, Dr. Sucha Singh, PW-2, Dr. Suman Sexana, PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi and PW-4, Smt. Urmila Devi. The injuries as per the medical evidence were possible with the weapon of offence Ex.-Pl, Ex.-P2 and Ex.-P5. The recoveries of these weapons of offence have been duly proved by the prosecution. As far as variance in Ex. PW-6/A and statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are concerned, suffice it to say that the report given by Kuldip Singh (deceased) vide Ex. PW-6/A could not be an encyclopedia. He has narrated the manner in which the incident has taken place. He was not supposed to give the names of each and every witness, since he has already stated that the neighbours have come to his rescue. The statements of PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi, PW-4, Smt. Urmila Devi, PW-5, Sarika and PW-6, Smt. Urmila Devi inspire confidence and should not have been discarded by the learned trial Court merely on surmises and conjectures. 23. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued that statements of PW-5, Sarika Devi, being daughter of the deceased and PW-6, Smt. Urmila Devi, wife of deceased Kuldip Singh, can not be relied upon. It is settled law that the statements of the related witnesses can be taken into consideration, but the statements have to be scrutinized with due care and caution. 24. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Ali and Another Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573 , have held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Their Lordships have held as under: 51. 24. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Ali and Another Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573 , have held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Their Lordships have held as under: 51. On the basis of the law as settled by this Court in a number of judgments which are noticed by the High Court, it is held 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 leaving a way for the real accused to escape. PW 2 is not only related to PW 5 but he was also seriously injured. The High Court reiterates that the presence of PW 2 at the scene of occurrence is not disputed due to the registration of the counter case. With regard to the non explanation of the injury on the accused, it is stated that PW 9 and PW 10 spoke about the same. The injuries were also explained by PW 10, the doctor, who stated that the injuries in Ex. P.23 and P.24 certificates can be caused otherwise than by assault, i.e., by a fall or by a road transport accident. 25. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharnidhar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 759 , have held 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. Their Lordships have held as under: 11. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants, in fact, can be discussed together inasmuch as they are based upon somewhat common submissions. There is no doubt that PW 1 and PW 2, both are related to the deceased. The contention raised before us is that both of them are interested witnesses and have not stated true facts before the Court and thus, their statements should be entirely disbelieved. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. It has come on record that Pyare Lal was pursuing a case in which members of the family of the accused persons were involved in a murder. There was apparently some anger and rift between the families. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. It has come on record that Pyare Lal was pursuing a case in which members of the family of the accused persons were involved in a murder. There was apparently some anger and rift between the families. According to the story of the prosecution, they had come prepared to kill Bahadur Singh as well as Pyare Lal as they were carrying guns, sphere etc. The deceased were attacked by the accused in the presence of their brothers, who could not intervene and save them because of the fear of the gun fire and the manner in which the incident occurred. It was but natural for the prosecution to produce PW 1 and PW 2 as the main eye witnesses as they had actually seen the occurrence and they have been believed by the trial Court, as well as by the High Court. Even before us, no serious attempt has been made and infact, nothing appears from the record to show that these two witnesses were not present on the site. 12. 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 the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan Vs. U.T. of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: 23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not he pedantic. The Court must he cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses hut the Court must not he suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must he to look for consistency. The Court must he cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses hut the Court must not he suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must he to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot he ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 24. From a perusal of the record, we find that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is clear and categorical in reference to the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. They have clearly and consistently supported the prosecution version with regard to the beating and the illtreatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant on several occasions which compelled the deceased to leave the appellant's house and take shelter in her parental house with an intention to live there permanently. PWs 1 to 4 have unequivocally stated that the deceased feared threat to her life from the appellant. The aforesaid version narrated by the prosecution witnesses, viz. PWs 1 to 4 also finds corroboration from the facts stated in the complaint. 26. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Myladimmal Surendran and Others Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 11 SCC 129 , have held that testimony of wife could not be discarded on the basis that she was an interested witness. Their Lordships have further held that if such a wide proposition is accepted, evidence of all witnesses who were relatives of a victim of a violent crime would be rendered unacceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: 35. In our opinion, the evidence given by the wife of the deceased in this case was unimpeachable. It could not be discarded, as stated by the learned senior Counsel on the basis that she was an interested witness. If such a wide proposition was to be accepted the evidence of all the witnesses who were relatives of a victim of a violent crime would be rendered unacceptable. Merely because PW 1 happens to be the wife of the deceased would not justify her being branded as an interested witnesses. 36. The evidence of the wife is followed by the consistent evidence given by PW 2 and PW 3. This is further corroborated by the dying declaration made by the injured within minutes of being assaulted. Merely because PW 1 happens to be the wife of the deceased would not justify her being branded as an interested witnesses. 36. The evidence of the wife is followed by the consistent evidence given by PW 2 and PW 3. This is further corroborated by the dying declaration made by the injured within minutes of being assaulted. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the submissions of the learned senior Counsel that the evidence of the eye-witnesses ought to be disbelieved. In our opinion, the High Court rightly rejected the submission, which was also reiterated before us, that the evidence of PW 2 and PW S should be rejected on the ground that they were chance as well as the partisan witnesses. 37. We may at this stage notice the observations made by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 752 , which is as under:-- True, it is she is the wife of the deceased, but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested' in the instant case PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents. 27. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waman and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, have held that that if the evidence of related witness is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence, but the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously, with care. Their Lordships have held as under: 14. In view of the stand of the Counsel for the appellants that since PWs 1-4, eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and complainant, conviction can not be based on such evidence, let us state the law on the admissibility/acceptability or otherwise of their evidence as considered by this Court. 15. In Sarwan Singh and Others Vs. In view of the stand of the Counsel for the appellants that since PWs 1-4, eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and complainant, conviction can not be based on such evidence, let us state the law on the admissibility/acceptability or otherwise of their evidence as considered by this Court. 15. In Sarwan Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the evidence of interested witness held that: it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. 16. The fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit the evidence. In the said case, the witness relied on by the prosecution was the brother of the wife of the deceased and was living with the deceased for quite a few years. This Court held that: but that by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of this witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true. 17. In Balraje @ Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 , this Court held that the mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the Court would be required to analyze the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the Court would be required to analyze the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. 18. The same principles have been reiterated in Prahalad Patel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 262 , In para 15, this Court held that: though PWs 2 and 7 are brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. In a series of decisions this Court has accepted the above principle (vide Israr Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 616 , and S. Sudershan Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 163. 19. The above principles have been once again reiterated in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , Here again, this Court has emphasized that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of an witness. The following statement of law on this point is relevant: 29.....The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 , Vishnu and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 ; and Balraje @ Trimbak (supra)] 20. It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care. 28. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care. 28. These principles have been again reiterated by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 2172 . Their Lordships have held that there is no ground and reason to disbelieve the related witness and there is no reason why they would not speak truth, so as to see that actual guilty persons are convicted. Their Lordships have held as under: 13. The prosecution has examined at least three eyewitnesses to the occurrence of the incident who have stated as to how the incident had happened. They have also stated the different and various roles played by the accused persons. Since the eyewitnesses were available and examined, there was no necessity of examining any other witness, inasmuch as, there is no necessity for the prosecution to multiply witnesses to prove and establish the prosecution case. There is no requirement in the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove something. The evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted. The witnesses who were examined were relatives of the deceased and, therefore, there is no ground and reason why they should be disbelieved. There is also no reason why they would not speak the truth so as to see that the actual guilty persons are convicted. 29. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Onkar and Another Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 273 , have held that law does not prohibit reliance upon evidence of closely related witness. Their Lordships have held as under: 10. Per contra, Shri D.K. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the FIR had promptly been lodged within a period of 3 hours after midnight though the police station was at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence. The appellants had been named in the FIR. Roles attributed to each of them had been explained. Motive had also been mentioned. Injuries suffered by Tarawati and Chandra Bose had also been given. The appellants had been named in the FIR. Roles attributed to each of them had been explained. Motive had also been mentioned. Injuries suffered by Tarawati and Chandra Bose had also been given. Law does not proscribe reliance upon the evidence of closely related witnesses. However, it requires that evidence of such witnesses must be appreciated with care and caution. Once the evidence is found reliable/trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the witness has been closely related to the victim. The injuries found on the person of the deceased as well as on Tarawati, Chandra Bose and Mohd. Shafi corroborate the case of the prosecution and in such a fact-situation, the provisions of Section 149 IPC have rightly been applied. The issue of non-examination of the injured witnesses, namely, Tarawati and Chandra Bose and of eye-witnesses, namely, Roshan Singh, Hukum Singh and Jagdish has not been put to the Investigating Officer in cross-examination who could have furnished the explanation for their non-examination. Thus, the issue cannot be raised first time in appeal before this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 30. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and Another Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 , have held that there is no bar in law on examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses since in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured and tries to defuse the crises. Their Lordships have further held that the Court cannot reject such evidence merely on ground that witness was family member or interested witness or person known to affected party. Their Lordships have also held that the Court can convict an accused on statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of deceased and thus, an interested party provided statement of witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by prosecution. Their Lordships have held as under: 24. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/appellants is that only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Their Lordships have held as under: 24. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/appellants is that only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was family member or interested witness or person known to the affected party. 25. There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, because, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness available to give the complete version of the incident. In this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this Court, in the case of Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) CriLJ 1819. 33. The Court can convict an accused on the statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of the deceased and thus, an interested party. The condition precedent to such an order is that the statement of such witness should satisfy the legal parameters stated by this Court in a catena of judgments. Once those parameters are satisfied and the statement of the witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution, oral or documentary, then the Court would not fall in error of law in relying upon the statements of such witness. It is only when the Courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in to and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect. It is only when the Courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in to and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court, in the case of Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 . 31. In a recent judgment, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 171 , have held that just because witnesses were related to deceased, that is no ground to discard their credible and sufficiently corroborated testimony. Their Lordships have further held that it is quality and not quantity of evidence that is relevant for conviction. Their Lordships have held as under: 15. On a proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record, it is clear that in the circumstances, one could hardly expect any other evidence to be available. It would only be the family members who would be present at the place of occurrence of the crime and only such interested persons could depose with regard to commission of the crime. The statements of these witnesses are trustworthy and offer the graphic eye account of the exact events, during the course of occurrence. Clearly, there was common object among the members of the unlawful assembly to somehow do away with Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila. 16. It is a settled principle of the law of evidence that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that has to be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding such matters. As already noticed, even in the year 1986, Rajender and Matadin had beaten Manohar Lal and his wife, for which they were also facing criminal trial. Again, they had abused and beaten Naresh, PW-4 on 3rd July, 1994, when he was putting earth in the street in front of his house. Thereafter, on 5 th July, 1994, this unfortunate incident had taken place. 17. When on 5 th July, 1994, Manohar Lal and his wife returned from Delhi, even before they entered their house and when they were discussing the incident that took place on 3rd July, 1994 with their teenage children, the accused persons, armed with weapons, came there and started assaulting Manohar Lal and his wife. 17. When on 5 th July, 1994, Manohar Lal and his wife returned from Delhi, even before they entered their house and when they were discussing the incident that took place on 3rd July, 1994 with their teenage children, the accused persons, armed with weapons, came there and started assaulting Manohar Lal and his wife. This clearly shows that Matadin and the other accused had been looking for an opportunity to fight with Manohar Lal and his family members, on one pretext or the other. 20. Both the deceased had tried to run away, but were chased by the accused. While Manohar Lal exhorted the others, all accused persons, particularly accused No. 7, Kailash, effectively participated in inflicting injuries on the bodies of the deceased. Thus, a common intention came into existence at the spur of the moment, even if the same was not preexisting. The existence of common object and intent is not only reflected from the circumstantial evidence, but is also clearly demonstrated in the statement of PW-4 and PW-5, respectively. 21. The offenders, if have no common intention or object to kill the victim, they would normally stop assaulting the victim and leave him in the injured condition when he falls down on the ground. On the contrary, in the case in hand, all the accused, except those acquitted by the High Court, had participated with a common mind to cause fatal injuries upon both Manohar Lal and Sushila. 22. PW-4, in his statement, has clearly and definitely explained the occurrence, by attributing specific role to each one of the accused. According to him, Rajender inflicted Jaily blow on the legs of Manohar Lal. Matadin gave jaily blow on the head of Manohar Lal, which the deceased deflected with his hands. Krishan gave Jaily blow on the back of Manohar Lal, whereafter the victim fell on the ground. Thereafter, Bhim inflicted Kasola blow on the head of the deceased Manohar Lal and finally, all the other accused started mercilessly inflicting blows on the person of the deceased Manohar Lal. 23. The statement of PW-4 also shows that the accused persons had also inflicted injuries on the body of Sushila, with an intention to kill her. The version put forward by this witness is fully supported by that of PW-5 and from other documentary evidence placed on record. 23. The statement of PW-4 also shows that the accused persons had also inflicted injuries on the body of Sushila, with an intention to kill her. The version put forward by this witness is fully supported by that of PW-5 and from other documentary evidence placed on record. The medical evidence completely corroborates the story advanced by this witness for the prosecution. Once, the statement of a witness is found trustworthy and is duly corroborated by other evidence, there is no reason for the Court to reject the statement of such witness, merely on the ground that it was a statement of a related or interested witness. 24. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Waman and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Jalpat Rai and Others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2719 , and State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 , to contend that the statement of a related or interested witnesses should not be relied upon and made the sole basis of conviction by the Court. 25. Firstly, none of these judgments state this principle as an absolute proposition of law. Each judgment deals with its own facts. In the case of Woman (supra), the Court clearly held that if the evidence of the related witnesses is found to be consistent and true, the same cannot be discarded. Similarly, in the case of Jalpat Rai (supra), the Court noticed that the presence of the witnesses at the time of incident would not guarantee their truthfulness. The question to be examined by the Court is whether their testimony is trustworthy and reliable insofar as complicity of the appellants in the crime is concerned, or whether they have tried to implicate the innocent along with the guilty. 26. In the case of Ram Singh's (supra), the circumstances were totally different. In that case, the interested and related witnesses were not only examined as witnesses to the incident but they were also witnesses to the arrests and in view of these facts, the Court felt that there existed a doubt about the trustworthiness of these witnesses, which must go to the benefit of the accused. 27. All these cases, in fact, would have no application to the present case. 27. All these cases, in fact, would have no application to the present case. In the present case, it is more than clear that PW-4 and PW-5 were both present at the time of the incident. The prior animosity and clashes between the two families has come on record. In the cross-examination, no material was brought out to the contrary. On the other hand, there seems to be no challenge to vital facts .The facts of the cited cases being different and there being hardly any challenge to the vital aspects of the present case, ratio decidendi of those judgments would hardly further the case of the accused. 29. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the above principles, it is clear that the presence of PW-4 and PW-5 at the place of occurrence was natural and their statements, are trustworthy, corroborated by other evidence and do not suffer from the vice of suspicion or uncertainty. The Court has to give credence to their statement as they have lost their close relations and have no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons, who are also their relations. Thus, we find no merit in this contention of the learned Counsel for the accused. 32. We are of the considered view that the accused are guilty of offence u/s 304-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned trial Court, dated 15.07.2004, is set aside and we convict all the accused persons, Baljit Singh, Balbir Singh and Nirmla Devi for having committed an offence punishable u/s 304-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled. They now be produced before us on 4th October, 2012, for being heard on the issue of quantum of sentence. The Registry to take necessary follow up action.