JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.7.2006 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhanbad in S.T. No. 284 of 2004/ 49 of 2004, whereby the appellant having been found guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 29.11.2003 at about 8:15 a.m. the informant-Soban Besra (P.W.4) , wife of the deceased-Rabi Lal Besra, came at Tundi police station along with the dead body of her husband with the help of villagers and she gave her statement before the Officer In-charge of Tundi police station regarding the occurrence which is alleged to have occurred on 28.11.2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the house of the informant at Village Sinduari Tand and the same was written by Saheb Ram Besra-P.W.3. According to the prosecution case, while the deceased was scratching pumpkin at his house, the appellant, who is agnate of the deceased, came there with lathi and axe, and gave a lathi blow to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down after assault. Thereafter, the appellant gave several blows to the deceased by means of tangi (axe) which hit on the head, side of the ear, temporal region and other parts of the body, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury. In the meantime, the informant, her son along with villagers went there in order to save the deceased and then the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant took the deceased to the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar for treatment but during treatment the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Thereupon, the informant with the help of the villagers took the dead body of the deceased to the police station where the Officer In-charge of Tundi police station recorded her statement. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, Tundi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, Tundi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. After registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext.2/1) of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the appellant and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The plea of the defence is completely denial of the allegation. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 8 witnesses, including the doctor and the Investigating Officer. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 6. Based upon the evidences of the eye-witnesses, Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, counsel for the appellant, has assailed the judgment of the learned court below on the following grounds: (I) All the eye-witnesses are the interested witnesses and related to the deceased and their statements are not corroborated with the independent witness; (II) The real version of the occurrence has not come to the surface, as the first information report is not the statement of the informant, which has been stated to the police, rather the same was written by one Saheb Ram Murmu-P.W.3; (III) The prosecution has suppressed the material facts and the charge is defective inasmuch as the material object was not produced before the court; (IV) There are major contradictions of the statements of the witnesses; (V) No specific question was put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., implicating him in the alleged offence. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality and infirmity in convicting the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. On the other hand, Mr. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality and infirmity in convicting the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant has given lathi and tangi (axe) blows to the deceased, as a result of which, he died. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the findings arrived at by learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 9. P.W. 1- Hemlal Besra, who is nephew of the deceased, is the eye witness. He deposed that while he was present in the house of the deceased, the appellant came there armed with lathi and tangi and first gave a lathi blow on the forehead of the deceased and then also gave tangi blow on the neck, cheek and forehead of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. 10. P.W.2-Nandulal Besra, who is brother of the deceased, is also the eye witness. This witness has also deposed that the appellant assaulted the deceased first by lathi and then by tangi on his neck, cheek and forehead, resulting into his death. 11. P.W.3- Saheb Ram Murmu is the co-villager and he deposed that on hearing hulla, when he went to the house of the deceased, he saw the appellant, armed with Axe, fleeing away from there. He proved his signature on the statement of the informant as Ext.1. He also proved his signature on the inquest report as Ext.2. 12. P.W.4-Soban Besra is the informant and wife of the deceased. She deposed that the appellant came to her house and hit the Khappar (roof tile) from the stone and then gave a tangi blow on the head, temple and cheek of her husband-deceased and on making hulla, the appellant fled away from there. There was a dispute between the deceased and the appellant. 13. P.W.6-Manager Soren is the co-villager. She deposed that the appellant came to her house and hit the Khappar (roof tile) from the stone and then gave a tangi blow on the head, temple and cheek of her husband-deceased and on making hulla, the appellant fled away from there. There was a dispute between the deceased and the appellant. 13. P.W.6-Manager Soren is the co-villager. This witness also deposed that after hearing hulla, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the appellant fleeing away from there. 14. P.W.7-Mansukh Kindo is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that when he came to the place of occurrence, he found blood stains on the place of occurrence. He has proved the Inquest Report (Ext.2/1). He also proved the endorsement on the formal FIR (Ext.1/1). 15. P.W. 8-Junu Murmu is a hearsay witness and he deposed that he came to know about the incident from the others. 16. P.W.5-Dr. Shailendra Kumar is the medical officer who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries:- 1. Swelling on the both sides of the forehead. 2. Incised wound irregular margins. i. 2” x 1/2” x scalp deep on the right side of the head. ii. 1-1/2” x 1/4” x scalp deep on the left side of the forehead. iii. 1/2” x 1/4” x muscle deep on the left side of the face. iv. 2” x 1/4” x bone deep on the left side of lower jaw. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.3) with an opinion that the death was caused due to injuries on the head and brain caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon with blunt edge, such as Axe (tangi) and time elapsed since death was within 12 hours. 17. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the materials available on record. It appears that the doctor- P.W.5, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased, has opined that the death was caused due to head and brain injuries caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon with blunt edge. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are the eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 3 and 6 are the co-villagers of the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 4-informant, who is the eye witness and widow of the deceased deposed that the present appellant inflicted tangi blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he died. 18. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are the eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 3 and 6 are the co-villagers of the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 4-informant, who is the eye witness and widow of the deceased deposed that the present appellant inflicted tangi blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he died. 18. On scanning the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, it is crystal clear that the present appellant was the author of crime and he assaulted the deceased with tangi on his forehead, neck and cheek. The evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are corroborated with the postmortem report of the doctor-P.W. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has, no doubt, attacked the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court by stating that all eye-witnesses are the interested witnesses and therefore, their evidences ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court but, in a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely the witnesses being the interested witnesses, their evidences should not be discarded. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-26 of the judgment rendered in a case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( 1954 SCR 145 ) has stated, which is as follows:- “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.” 19. Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish the circumstances as mentioned above which only point towards the guilt of the appellant and thereby the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. 20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed. 20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed. 21. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.