JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2003 and 04.03.2003 respectively, whereby and where under appellants were convicted for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of Mangra Oraon and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant Sukra Oraon was directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, whereas appellant Balwa Oraon and Charles Oraon were directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The court below further directed that on realisation of the fine amount same shall be paid to the dependant of the deceased. 2. The case of prosecution, as per first information report, is that on 06.02.1994, in the evening, informant was present in his house. At that time his nephew Mangra Oraon was also present in his house. It is alleged that during that period accused Charles Oraon, Balwa Oraon, Sukra Oraon, Bande Oraon and Madru Oraon came, armed with Bhujali and assaulted Mangra Oraon. It is further stated that due to said assault Mangra Oraon fell on the ground. It is further stated that he forbade them from doing so, but they did not give any heed to his request. It is stated that due to said assault Mangra Oraon died on the spot. It is further stated that Jeeta Oraon, Barki Orain and others arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and witnessed the occurrence. It is stated that prior to the occurrence, some altercation took place in between the deceased and accused and because of that, present occurrence took place. 3. On the basis of aforesaid information Mander P.S.case no. 05 of 1994 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code instituted and police took up investigation. During the investigation, police prepared inquest report of the dead body of deceased and sent it for postmortem examination. After completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and two others under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and then committed the case to the court of Sessions, as the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. After completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and two others under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and then committed the case to the court of Sessions, as the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. After commitment, records of the case was transferred and received in the court of 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who framed charge against the appellants and two others under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and explained the same to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial, prosecution examined altogether 07(seven) witnesses in support of its case. Prosecution also brought on the record, Ext.1 (signature of informant), Ext.1/1 (signature of informant on the inquest report), Ext.1/2 (signature of Lagnu Oraon on the inquest report), Ext.2 (postmortem report) and Ext.3 (F.I.R.). It appears that after close of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons including the appellants recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Their defence is of total denial. It then appears that defence also examined three witnesses in support of its case. It further appears that after considering the evidence available on record, the learned court below acquitted co-accused Madru Oraon and Bande Oraon from the charge levelled against them. However, the learned court below convicted the appellants for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed them to pay fine. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, present appeal filed. 5. While assailing the impugned judgment of the court below, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant case, learned court below has convicted the appellants on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses. It is submitted that P.W. 1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are close relative of the deceased, therefore, they are highly interested in the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that evidence of aforesaid witnesses are not consistent in respect of manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and, therefore, they are not reliable witnesses. It is submitted that the evidences of prosecution witnesses do not find any corroboration from the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that evidence of aforesaid witnesses are not consistent in respect of manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and, therefore, they are not reliable witnesses. It is submitted that the evidences of prosecution witnesses do not find any corroboration from the medical evidence. It is submitted that Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution in this case. It is submitted that due to non-examination of Investigating Officer, a serious prejudice has been caused to the defence. It is submitted that non-examination of I.O. is fatal to the case of prosecution. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in this appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. submitted that from perusal of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, it is clear that they are eye witnesses of the occurrence. He further submitted that they are natural witnesses of the occurrence, as their houses are situated in the vicinity of place of occurrence. Learned Addl.P.P. submitted that evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 cannot be brushed aside merely because they are close relative of the deceased. He further submitted that evidence of any prosecution witness cannot be thrown over-board merely because he is related to the deceased. He further submitted that law requires that evidence of an interested witness could become the basis of conviction, if on close scrutiny, the same was found reliable and acceptable. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 is consistent with respect to manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence. Their evidence has found full corroboration from the evidence of P.W.6, the doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, it is submitted that evidence of P.W.1,P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 is wholly reliable and acceptable. Therefore, learned court below rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants on the basis of evidences of aforesaid witnesses. It is submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, thus, no interference require by this court. 7. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 8. P.W. 6, Dr. It is submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, thus, no interference require by this court. 7. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 8. P.W. 6, Dr. Niranjan Minz, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Mangra Oraon and found altogether five anti-mortem incised wounds on his body. The doctor gave opinion that the aforesaid injuries were caused by a heavy sharp cutting pointed weapon, such as Bhujali. This witness has further gave opinion that death of the deceased took place due to shock and haemorrhage. There is nothing in the cross-examination on which evidence of P.W.6 can be disbelieved. Evidence of P.W.6 finds full support from the inquest report of the deceased. Thus, I find that prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased. 9. Now, I am proceeding to consider other evidences available on the record. P.W.2 Jita Oraon has stated that on the date of occurrence, in the evening, Charles, Sukra, Balwa, Madru and Bande had assaulted Mangra Oraon with Bhujali. He then stated that when he went to the rescue of Mangra then Charles assaulted him with Bhujali, due to that he received injury on his hand. During cross-examination, he stated that at the time of occurrence, he was sitting under a Jamun( black berry) tree. He further stated that the occurrence took place in his presence. He also stated that police after looking to his injuries had got him medically treated. Thus, defence has not elicited anything , on which his evidence can be disbelieved. 10. P.W.5 Kailash Oraon, is another eye witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, in the evening, Charles assaulted Mangra with Bhujali and when he fell down, Balwa and Sukra repeatedly assaulted him due to that he received injuries on his neck, head and hand. He further stated that when Jita Oraon went to the rescue of the deceased, he was also assaulted by Charles Oraon with Bhujali, due to that he received injury on his hand hand. He stated that Mangra Oraon died due to injury sustained by him. This witness was also cross-examined at length but the prosecution had not elicited any material on which his credibility can be doubted. 11. He stated that Mangra Oraon died due to injury sustained by him. This witness was also cross-examined at length but the prosecution had not elicited any material on which his credibility can be doubted. 11. P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely, Goindi Orain and Burki Orain are aunt of deceased. It appears that they had been declared hostile by the prosecution, because they have not stated anything against co-accused Madru Oraon and Bande Oraon. However, both the witnesses in their examination-in-chief had categorically stated that Charles, Sukra and Balwa assaulted Mangra Oraon with Bhujali, due to that Mangra died. They also stated that Jita Oraon went in rescue of Mangra, but he was also been assaulted by Charles Oraon. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that these two witnesses have fully corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and P.W. 5. I find that evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 find full support from the evidence of P.W.6 who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 12. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied for convicting the appellants, because they are highly interested in the prosecution case, being the relative of deceased, is not acceptable. It well settled that evidence of any witness cannot be thrown outside the arena of consideration, merely because they are interested and/or related to the deceased. The law requires that their evidences be scrutinised carefully and if on careful scrutiny, their evidence is found to be reliable and acceptable, then conviction can be based on their evidence. 13. In the instant case, as noticed above, evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 5, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence are consistent, so far it relates to manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. The defence has failed to bring anything on the record, on the basis of which their credibility can be doubted. I, further find that evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 find full corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6. Under the said circumstance, I find that evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 is wholly reliable and acceptable, thus the learned court below rightly accepted their evidence for convicting the appellants. 14. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in the instant case, non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of prosecution. Under the said circumstance, I find that evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 is wholly reliable and acceptable, thus the learned court below rightly accepted their evidence for convicting the appellants. 14. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in the instant case, non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of prosecution. This submission is also not acceptable and liable to be rejected. 15. It is well settled that if no prejudice is caused to the defence, then in that case, non-examination of Investigating Officer has no consequence on the case of prosecution. 16. In the instant case, from perusal of cross-examination of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, I find that the defence has not challenged the place of occurrence. I further find that defence has not elicited any contradiction from P.W.2 and P.W.5, which is required to be proved by the Investigating Officer. Under the said circumstance, I find that due to non-examination of Investigating Officer, no prejudice has been caused to the defence. Accordingly, I find that non-examination of Investigating Officer in this case is not fatal to the case of prosecution. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I find that prosecution had proved the charge levelled against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Thus, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below and the same is hereby affirmed. 18. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Amitav K. Gupta, J. – I agree.