Judgment A.B. Chaudhari, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.12.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 446/2006, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only), in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, the present appeal was filed by the appellant. 2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (A) The judgment and order impugned recorded by the trial Court is based on misapplication of law and misreading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. (B) The learned trial Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 Nathu Nagoji Warkhade and P.W.2 Meerabai Nathuji Warkhade the alleged eyewitnesses, who in first place, were the interested witnesses and secondly, were the witnesses, who could not see the actual incident of assault allegedly by the appellant on the deceased Vichhapuri. (C) Merely because P.W.2 Meerabai was injured in the incident, she could not be relied upon as an eyewitness because she had no chance to see the incident proper and that has been duly brought in the cross-examination by the defence but unfortunately has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial judge. (D) The trial Court ought to have analyzed with caution the evidence of P.W.1 Nathu and P.W.2 -Meerabai since they were the interested witnesses and due to earlier quarrel and the dispute amongst the parties, the evidence of these interested witnesses was required to be dealt with. (E) The trial Court committed an error in relying upon the other evidence brought by the prosecution on record so also the post mortem report. (F) In alternate, he argued that the offence does not fall under the purview of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but would fall under Section 304 II of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Counsel took us through the entire evidence relied by the prosecution in the trial. (F) In alternate, he argued that the offence does not fall under the purview of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but would fall under Section 304 II of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Counsel took us through the entire evidence relied by the prosecution in the trial. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order and argued that the evidence of P.W.1 Nathu and P.W.2 - Meerabai is consistent and does not create any doubt in relation to the prosecution story, which has been amply proved on record. He, therefore, supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order. We have gone through the entire evidence that was recorded by the prosecution before the trial Court. We have heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 6. P.W.1 Nathu is the father of the deceased Vichhapuri. He deposed that on 3.8.2006 at about 7:30 to 8:00 p.m. he was in his house. The accused/appellant Raju came in the square just opposite his house and started abusing and threatening him with life and was challenging him to come out of the house saying that P.W.1 - Nathu had not given account of utensils belonging to Panch Committee of the village. P.W.1 - Nathu came out of the house and questioned the appellant as to who was he to ask for the accounts. At that time, deceased Vichhapuri came there and asked Raju as to why he was quarrelling with his father. A scuffle ensued between them i.e. appellant Raju and the deceased Vichhapuri. Raju was having axe with him. He assaulted his son Vichhapuri on shoulder and Vichhapuri fell down. Vichhapuri got up and ran towards his house but appellant Raju took axe and went after P.W.1 - Nathu. By that time, P.W.2- Meerabai came there. The appellant Raju assaulted Meerabai on her shoulder and leg by means of axe. P.W.1 Nathu went back to his house so also Vichhapuri. But appellant Raju followed Vichhapuri and assaulted him again in his courtyard by means of axe on his head, shoulder, back etc. at six places of the body. P.W.1 Nathu then rushed to find that his son Vichhapuri was dead. P.W.1 Nathu went back to his house so also Vichhapuri. But appellant Raju followed Vichhapuri and assaulted him again in his courtyard by means of axe on his head, shoulder, back etc. at six places of the body. P.W.1 Nathu then rushed to find that his son Vichhapuri was dead. He identified the axe in the Court. We have gone through the cross-examination of this eyewitness. In paragraph no. 3 of the cross-examination, an attempt has been made to bring on record that there is Chabutara and the place where Vichhapuri was lying in injured condition was not visible from Chabutara because of the distance of the house of Vichhapuri, while it was not visible from the western side because of the house of Warghade. That the said place is not visible until one comes from Chabutara up to 15 to 20 ft. because of the house of Janardhan. It has also been brought on record that it was drizzling on the day of incident and was dark due to load-shedding and therefore, it was not possible to identify the appellant as assailant. Perusal of the further cross-examination of this witness to our mind does not show that his evidence on the incident proper about assault has at all been shaken in the cross-examination. We will deal with that aspect of visibility from Chabutara also about drizzling and darkness a bit later. We are, however, satisfied that the evidence of this witness on the incident proper and the actual assault on the deceased by the appellant is consistent and from perusal of the report lodged by him, we find that the First Information Report corroborates his evidence. The F.I.R. was immediately lodged without any loss of time and we therefore find that the F.I.R. corroborates his evidence. 7. The next witness is P.W.2 Meerabai the mother of the deceased Vicchapuri. She deposed that at about 8:00 p.m. accused/appellant Raju had come near the Chabutara in the square near her house and was abusing her husband on account of non-submission of account of utensils of Panchayat. She was cooking in her house. Her husband went to see why Raju was abusing. She heard cry from that side and went to see what was happening. She saw scuffle between appellant Raju and Vichhapuri. She tried to intervene but Raju gave two blows of axe to Vichhapuri and Vichhapuri tried to run away. She was cooking in her house. Her husband went to see why Raju was abusing. She heard cry from that side and went to see what was happening. She saw scuffle between appellant Raju and Vichhapuri. She tried to intervene but Raju gave two blows of axe to Vichhapuri and Vichhapuri tried to run away. Then Raju followed her husband. She was standing near Chabutara. Raju caught hold of her neck and assaulted her with the handle of axe on her leg and on her back twice. She prayed for mercy. Raju then pushed her away and she fell down. Appellant Raju ran away towards Vichhapuri and assaulted him in his courtyard. She was near Chabutara. Then Raju returned to Chabutara and threatened her with life. She and her husband went to Police Patil, who refused to accompany her husband and her to police station. In the cross-examination, she admitted that there was no electricity due to load-shedding and it was drizzling and there was darkness in the village. She also admitted that the place where Vichhapuri was lying was not visible by standing near Chabutara. The omissions about number of blows were brought but we do not find any significance merely due to discrepancy of number of blows. 8. This is, thus, the direct evidence of these two witnesses. It is true that both these witnesses being the mother and father of the deceased are related witnesses. We are, however, not prepared to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that their evidence should be rejected merely because they are related to the deceased. We are also not prepared to reject the prosecution case merely because no other independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Perusal of the evidence of both these witnesses to our mind coupled with the F.I.R. clearly shows that the said evidence is consistent and not shaken in the cross-examination. There is no damage caused to their evidence in the cross-examination in any manner whatsoever. We have no reason to disbelieve their evidence merely because they are related witnesses. It is not the law that the evidence of related witnesses should be rejected. We have however taken care to find out whether the evidence of these witnesses is vitiated on any count. We do not find so merely because they are the parents of the deceased. It is not the law that the evidence of related witnesses should be rejected. We have however taken care to find out whether the evidence of these witnesses is vitiated on any count. We do not find so merely because they are the parents of the deceased. On the contrary, we find that they are natural witnesses in the sense that P.W.2 Meerabai was cooking food in the evening and her husband was at her house. The appellant started challenging them by standing outside their house armed with axe abusing P.W.1 - Nathu. P.W.1 Nathu naturally came out to ask why he was abusing. P.W.2 Meerabai thereafter heard some cries and thereafter came out with her hands wet with the cooking food and tried to intervene and in that process also suffered two injuries due to axe. The blows were given by the appellant to her and she fell down and pleaded for mercy. There is no reason why the evidence of P.W.2 Meerabai who is injured witness in the attack by the appellant should be disbelieved. Similar is the case of P.W.1 Nathu, who is father of the deceased and it was he, who was being abused by the appellant Raju and also dared him to come out of the house. The evidence of P.W.1 - Nathu is fully corroborated by the First Information Report. The quarrel started with Nathu coming out of the house and asking the appellant why he was abusing him and Nathu was there throughout. We have therefore no hesitation in accepting the evidence of both these eyewitnesses P.W.1 - Nathu and P.W.2 - Meerabai. 9. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant about darkness and drizzling has been carefully considered by us. In that context, we have read the reasoning given by the trial Court and we have compared the same with the evidence. Instead of adding our reasonings in addition, we find that the reasoning given by the trial Court in paragraph no. 24 is apt on the point. We quote paragraph no. 24 which reads thus. 24. No doubt, it is come on record that at the time of incident, there was drizzling and darkness. Moreover, it is come on record that from a platform located in front of the house of accused happenings going on in court yard of deceased Vichhapuri can not be seen. We quote paragraph no. 24 which reads thus. 24. No doubt, it is come on record that at the time of incident, there was drizzling and darkness. Moreover, it is come on record that from a platform located in front of the house of accused happenings going on in court yard of deceased Vichhapuri can not be seen. According to P.W.2 Meerabai she had not gone to court yard of the house of deceased. According to defence P.W.1 Nathu had also not witnessed the incident because he was present at a plat form located in front of his house and not in a court yard of the house of deceased. However, only because there was drizzling and darkness because of disconnection of electricity for some time, it can not be said that P.W.1 Nathu and P.W.2 Meerabai had no occasion to witness the incident. P.W.5 Arjun (Exh.18) has positively asserted that he had witnessed that at about 7.30 p.m., a quarrel amongst P.W.1 Nathu and accused was going on at the relevant place. In ordinary course if a electricity supply is disconnected and drizzling is going on, even then it is expected that in residential locality some light would come out side the houses of villagers in which it is expected to identify what is going on. Moreover, if persons involved in happening are conversant with each other then from talk amongst them during happening of incident, they can be identified, even if drizzling is going on and there is darkness to some extent. Apparently P.W.1 Nathu, P.W.2 Meerabai, deceased Vichhapuri and accused were conversant with each other and all of them were involved in the happening. Consequently as P.W.1 Nathu and P.W.2 Meerabai had specifically stated that accused had given blows of axe upon deceased, their said version deserves to be believed as come forward in ordinary course specially in the circumstances that P.W.1 Nathu has specifically asserted that he had been to the court yard of the house of Vichhapuri immediately after going accused there. 10. We agree with the above reasoning and therefore, we reject the submission on that aspect. 11. 10. We agree with the above reasoning and therefore, we reject the submission on that aspect. 11. The next submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the witnesses P.W.1 - Nathu and P.W.2 - Meerabai could not see the place where the deceased Vichhapuri was lying will have to be rejected looking to the evidence of P.W.2 Meerabai, who stated that the incident started near Chabutara, where the appellant was standing in front of her house and was challenging P.W.1 - Nathu. As a matter of fact, Chabutara is located just in front of the house of P.W.1 - Nathu and P.W.2 - Meerabai and near the house of Vichhapuri, who was residing adjacent to the house of P.W.1 - Nathu. Thus, there was hardly any distance between Chabutara and the houses and the courtyard of the witness. It appears that the incident has taken place in that area of about 25 to 30 sq.ft. from Chabutara. It has come on record that the Chabutara is located in front of the house of these two witnesses P.W.1 Nathu and P.W.2 - Meerabai. Nothing has been brought on record about the height and breadth of the Chabutara. In the absence of proper measurement details about Chabutara, we are not prepared to give importance to the cross-examination in relation to Chabutara and visibility etc. or the place where deceased Vichhapuri was lying. At any rate, P.W.1 - Nathu and P.W.2 - Meerabai have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased first near Chabutara and thereafter when he fell down and ran away, appellant Raju followed him with axe and gave him blows one after other in his courtyard. It is nobodys case that after Vichhapuri ran away, somebody else has given blows on his person. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the said submission in defence. 12. Alternate submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant for reducing offence from Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to Section 304 I or 304 II of Indian Penal Code does nut appeal to us. From the above evidence discussed, it is clear that it was the appellant Raju who came to the house of P.W.1 - Nathu carrying axe with him. Then he started abusing P.W.1 Nathu in filthy language and thereafter started daring him to come out of the house. From the above evidence discussed, it is clear that it was the appellant Raju who came to the house of P.W.1 - Nathu carrying axe with him. Then he started abusing P.W.1 Nathu in filthy language and thereafter started daring him to come out of the house. When deceased Vichhapuri intervened to save his father, appellant Raju took out the axe and gave two blows on the shoulder of Vichhapuri and Vichhapuri fell down and started running away. P.W.2 Meerabai intervened but appellant Raju gave two blows of axe to her. The appellant did not stop there, he followed Vichhapuri and gave him number of blows of axe in his courtyard situated nearby Chabutara, which resulted into his death on the spot. Thus, the appellant clearly had the intention to commit the murder of Vichhapuri and did not stop at the initial blows given by him. Had there been no requisite intention to commit murder of deceased Vichhapuri, the appellant would have gone away from the spot after giving two blows to Vichhapuri after Vichhapuri fell down and ran away. But that was not to be so. The appellant after injuring P.W.2 - Meerabai followed Vichhapuri and struck blows of axe on his person without any mercy and knowing fully well that the weapon, namely axe was bound to cause death. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the alternate submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 13. We, thus, hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence of murder of Vichhapuri. In the result, we make the following order. ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 245/2009 is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.