JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th of April, 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 230/06 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/S. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- with default sentence of S.I. for one month. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-- 2.1. Deceased-Devsingh was grand-father-in-law (cousin) of Bangla Bai (PW-2). He was residing with her. He has commented on the meal prepared by Bangla Bai (PW-2). Bangla Bai, while taking bath in the river, was stating all this to the other ladies. The accused heard this. He abused Bangla Bai (PW-2) and assaulted her by a belt. Husband of Bangla Bai was also assaulted by him. Bangla Bai (PW-2), thereafter came to her house. The accused came there with a tabbal (farsa). Bangla Bai (PW-2) closed the door of her house. After sometime, Devsingh (deceased) came out from the house. The accused attacked over him by farsa and caused deep injury on his neck. Devsingh (deceased) succumbed to the injury sustained by him. 2.2. The incident was witnessed by Anita Bai (PW-3), Garibdas (PW-5) and Ramnath (PW-6). Ramnath lodged Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/5), F.I.R. (Ex.-P/19) and merg intimation (Ex.-P/20). 2.3. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/4) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/6) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW-4). He found following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-- (i) Incised wound of 4 inch x 1 inch on the angle of left lower jaw. It has gone deep cutting the angle and major portion of neck. Major vessels were also cut; blood clots were present; & (ii) Bruise of 5 inch x 1 inch on the top of the head, reddish brown in colour. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the above injuries were ante-mortem, caused by sharp object and the cause of death was injury to the neck with severe blood loss and it was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/1. 2.4. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the above injuries were ante-mortem, caused by sharp object and the cause of death was injury to the neck with severe blood loss and it was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/1. 2.4. In further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/9) u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a tabbal (farsa) was seized at his instance vide seizure memo Ex.-P/10. Farsa was sent for examination to the Doctor who opined that the said injury to the neck could have been caused by tabbal (farsa). 2.5. The case of the prosecution was based on eye-witness account of Anita Bai (PW-3), Garibdas (PW-5) and Ramnath (PW-6). The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that it was proved that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by tabbal (farsa) in the above manner, therefore, he was liable for punishment u/S. 302 IPC. The appellant, thus, was convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 2. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the eye-witnesses are not reliable; their evidence is not consistent; they are close relatives of the deceased; therefore, conviction based on their testimonies cannot be sustained. He took us to the evidence of all the eye-witnesses. Lastly he has contended that it was a case of single blow, therefore, an offence u/S. 302 IPC may not be made out and the appellant may be punished under some lesser Section preferably Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 IPC. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on the behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. 5. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. A witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. A witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. A close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness (See-Harbans Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana 2005 AIR SCW 2074; Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 AIR SCW 1835; Sonelal Vs. State of M.P. 2008 AIR SCW 7988; and Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals (2010) 7 SCC 759 ). 6. Therefore, the evidence of eye-witnesses namely-Anita Bai (PW-3), Garibdas (PW-5) and Ramnath (PW-6) cannot be brushed aside simply on account of they being the relatives of the deceased. However, their evidence is to be scrutinized with great caution to find out whether it is intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, and if found so, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of any one of them. 7. Anita Bai (PW-3) was aged about 16 years. She is grand daughter of the deceased. She deposed that when her grand-father came out from their house and was going towards their other house, the appellant assaulted him by a tabbal on his neck in front of the grocery-shop of Kamal Kumar. Her grand-father fell down. Many other persons had witnessed the incident. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had seen the incident standing on the door of their house. 8. Garibdas (PW-5) is grand son of the deceased. He also deposed in similar fashion. According to him, he was also standing on the door of his house. He saw that when his grand-father (deceased) was going from his house to another house, commonly called as Abadi house, the appellant attacked over his neck by tabbal and thereafter ran away from that place. Many villagers had also gathered there. 9. According to him, he was also standing on the door of his house. He saw that when his grand-father (deceased) was going from his house to another house, commonly called as Abadi house, the appellant attacked over his neck by tabbal and thereafter ran away from that place. Many villagers had also gathered there. 9. Ramnath (PW-6) is son of the deceased. He deposed that when his father (deceased) was going from his house to the house situated in Abadi, the appellant, who was sitting with a tabbal near the shop of Kamal Kumar, attacked over him. His father had received injury on the neck and had fell down and died on the spot. 10. Mr. Otwani has argued that Anita (PW-3) has said that she had informed her father, Ramnath (PW-6), about the incident, therefore, Ramnath (PW-6) was not an eye-witness. He also argued that eye-witnesses have not said about the presence of each other. 11. Only on account of evidence of Anita (PW-3) that she had informed Ramnath (PW-6), the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded. Anita (PW-3) has never deposed that her father had not seen the incident and he came to know about the incident only when she informed him. That apart, it is not a case in which all the eye-witnesses were present at one place. In the instant case the eye-witnesses were present at different places. Therefore it would make no difference if they were not able to see each other from the place where they were present. The incident took place in the dense locality of the village in front of a grocery-shop. The shop was not far away from that house of the deceased, where he was present just before the incident. 12. We have carefully examined the evidence of the eye witnesses. They were put to lengthy cross-examinations by the defence, but nothing material could be brought in their cross-examinations, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the appellant in the said incident. 13. The incident took place at about 1.45 p.m. (in broad day-light). The appellant was well known to the family members of the deceased, particularly the eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses have seen the incident from a very close distance. Therefore, there was no possibility of mistaken identity. 14. 13. The incident took place at about 1.45 p.m. (in broad day-light). The appellant was well known to the family members of the deceased, particularly the eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses have seen the incident from a very close distance. Therefore, there was no possibility of mistaken identity. 14. The version of the eye-witnesses, particularly Ramnath (PW-6), is also corroborated by the contents of the Merg intimation (Ex.-P/20), based on which the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/19) was registered. The appellant is named in these documents. The details of the incident are also mentioned therein. 15. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is further corroborated by the evidence of Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW-4), who conducted autopsy and found above injuries on the dead body of the deceased. There is no discrepancy in the eyewitnesses account and the medical evidence. All the eye-witnesses have said that the appellant gave single blow by tabbal, which hit on the neck of the deceased, who fell down on the spot and succumbed to the said injury. Apart from the above injury on the neck, there is one bruise on the head which appears to be on the fall after receiving the injury on the neck. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in resting the conviction of the appellant on the eye-witnesses account of Anita Bai (PW-3), Garibdas (PW-5) and Ramnath (PW-6). 16. Now we shall consider the argument relating to lesser offence. 17. Mr. Otwani has emphasized that it was a case of single blow, therefore, an offence u/S. 302 IPC would not be made out. 18. This argument cannot be accepted. All cases of single blow cannot be held to be constituting a lesser offence punishable under Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 IPC. For this purpose, the act of the accused must fall within one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC. Absence of intention to cause the death coupled with the lack of knowledge that death would be inevitably caused on account of the injury would make the offence fall u/S. 304, Part-II, IPC. 19. In the instant case, the appellant, armed with tabbal, was present near the grocery shop of Kamal Kumar. As soon as the deceased came out from his house, the appellant, even without saying a single word, attacked over the deceased by the tabbal and caused above injury on his neck. 19. In the instant case, the appellant, armed with tabbal, was present near the grocery shop of Kamal Kumar. As soon as the deceased came out from his house, the appellant, even without saying a single word, attacked over the deceased by the tabbal and caused above injury on his neck. The nature of weapon used, manner in which it was used, severity of the blow given by the appellant and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted with such an intensity, would show that the appellant had intention to commit murder of the deceased. We are of the opinion that in the above facts and circumstances, an offence u/S. 302 IPC would be made out and not that the case of the appellant would fall under any Exception to Section 300 IPC for punishment under some lesser Section. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.