JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The appellant - original accused was inter alia sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code by impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2011 in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal. The appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for one month under section 326 of Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 452 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief matrix of the prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that on 25.12.2007 at about 1530 hours one Sagardanbhai whose field is situated adjacent to the field of his father in the sim of Kalambhadi village telephoned him and informed him that somebody had beaten his father Jivabhai and brother Sureshbhai and asked him to come immediately with a vehicle. Hence, the complainant and his brother in law reached at Vadi and found the dead body of deceased lying on the cot in the room in a bloodied condition and that there were wounds on hand, chest, thigh, temple, left hand and back of his father. On inquiry, the complainant was informed that original accused persons came there at around 1500 hours and asked to give proof as to why his wife had consumed insecticide and that all the three persons got excited and inflicted blows with knife on Sureshbhai and Jivabhai. 2.1 A complaint in respect of the said incident was registered with Kotdasangani Police Station being C.R. I-No. 124 of 2007 for offence punishable under section 302, 307, 326,324, 452 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of B.P. Act. Necessary panchnamas were drawn and investigation was carried out and chargesheet was submitted against the appellant. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court at Nadiad under Section209 of the Code, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 55 of 2008. Charge vide Ex. 5 came to be framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court at Nadiad under Section209 of the Code, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 55 of 2008. Charge vide Ex. 5 came to be framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 The trial was initiated against the appellant and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses whose evidences have been read before us: "(i) Virjibhai Parmar Ex. 79 (ii) Dr. Vivek Mittal Ex. 17 (iii) Vikrambhai Varan Ex. 32 (iv) Rameshbhai Vanar Ex. 34 (v) Laljibhai Hamirbhai Vinzuda Ex. 35 (vi) Dilipbhai Soneta Ex. 37 (vii) Zubedbhai Nagani Ex. 39 (viii) Dilipbhai Soneta Ex. 43 (ix) Jagdishbhai Babariya Ex. 46 (x) Rameshbhai Dabhi Ex. 48 (xi) Anishbhai Charniya Ex. 49 (xii) Shabbir Bukhari Ex. 50 (xiii) Dr. Jaykant Bhattacharya Ex. 56 (xiv) Jivabhai Sidibhai Ex. 83 (xv) Rudiben Parmar Ex. 84 (xvi) Sagardanbhai Gadhvi Ex. 85 (xvii) Hareshdan Sagardan Ex. 86 (xviii) Nanjibhai Kotwal Ex. 87 (xix) Manishbhai Gujarati Ex. 91 (xx) Khimjibhai Gujarati Ex. 90 (xxi) Kalaben Chavda Ex. 93 (xxii) Arsibhai Sisodiya Ex. 102 (xxiii) Jayendrasinh Chauhan Ex. 105" 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon various documents such as panchnama of place of offence at Ex. 33, panchnama of the body at Ex. 36, arrest panchnama at Ex. 40 & 42, inquest panchnama at Ex. 47, P.M. Report at Ex. 57, map of place of offence at Ex. 88, complaint at Ex. 80, FSL report at Ex. 111 etc which have been perused by us during the course of hearing. 2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the charges leveled against him by impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Ms. Rekha Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. She submitted that the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased and therefore the trial court ought not to have based conviction on the basis of such related and interested witness. 3. Ms. Rekha Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. She submitted that the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased and therefore the trial court ought not to have based conviction on the basis of such related and interested witness. She submitted that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 3.1 Ms. Kapadia further submitted that the medical officer has given vague evidence regarding internal injuries. She submitted that the medical officer who performed post mortem did not opine that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by way of muddamal knife. She submitted that in fact the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been possible by way of muddamal knife because there are several T shape injuries and the said injuries were possible by two weapons. She submitted that the cut marks found on the shirt of the deceased did not tally with the injuries found on his person and therefore the accused ought not to be convicted. 4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. She has taken us to the evidence of P.W. 1 - Dr. Vivek Mittal who has examined father of deceased. The presence of injured eye witness at the scene of offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the post mortem report more particularly the injuries sustained by the deceased and submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 5. We have minutely gone through the oral and documentary evidence recorded during the course of trial. The prosecution has examined injured witness Jivabhai Parmar as P.W. 14 (Ex. 83). This witness has stated that on the date of incident the accused had come to the field of this witness where he himself, his wife and his son - the deceased were working and the accused inflicted knife blow on the chest of deceased. This witness has also stated the accused also inflicted knife blows on his head and left hand. This witness has also stated the accused also inflicted knife blows on his head and left hand. This witness has stated the reason for such an attack to be the feeling of an illicit relation between the deceased and accused's wife in the mind of the accused. The evidence given by this witness is natural and unblemished. 5.1 P.W. 16 - Sagardan Gadhvi has been examined vide Ex. 85 and this witness has also supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has present at his field which is situated adjacent to the field of the deceased. This witness has stated that he had seen the accused at the scene of offence and thereafter he was informed by the wife of injured witness that her son and husband had sustained injuries. 5.2 It is required to be noted that it is not the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution that matters but the quality of the evidence given by the witnesses is important. If the evidence of solitary witness inspires confidence of the court in that case the conviction can always be based on the basis of evidence of such solitary eye witness. We are unable to accept the submission that the eye witness being related to the deceased is an interested witness and therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon. So far as the witnesses are concerned, it is no doubt true that many of them are related to the deceased and for that reason they may be interested witness. However, the law is well settled that the testimony of a partisan or interested witness cannot be discarded merely on that account. The testimony of such a witness cannot be equated with that of a tainted witness. In the present case independent witnesses have also been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. 6. Moreover, the evidence of these witnesses is supported by the evidence of Dr. Jaykant Bhattacharya, who is examined by the prosecution as P.W. 12 vide Ex. 56. From the evidence of this witness it transpires that the deceased had suffered ten injuries as reflected in column No. 17 of the post mortem report at Ex. 57. According to the deposition of the doctor, of all the injuries, three injuries were stab wounds whereas two injuries were CLW and five injuries were incised wounds.. 56. From the evidence of this witness it transpires that the deceased had suffered ten injuries as reflected in column No. 17 of the post mortem report at Ex. 57. According to the deposition of the doctor, of all the injuries, three injuries were stab wounds whereas two injuries were CLW and five injuries were incised wounds.. This witness has further stated in his evidence that it is not necessary that the T shaped injury sustained by the deceased can happen only by way of a T shaped weapon. This witness has stated that on many occasions the shape of the injury depends upon the direction of the blow and the pressure on the body. He has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. 7. Considering the ocular as well as the medical evidence it is clear that the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover, we are also not oblivious of the fact that the FSL report also supports the case of the prosecution. The blood group of the deceased as well as injured is 'B' group. The blood found from the soil sample collected from the scene of offence, from the clothes worn by the accused and the muddamal weapon contain blood stains which are of group 'B'. The ocular as well as medical evidence is also corroborated by the FSL report. Therefore we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 8. However, in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah v. State of Assam, reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373 has held as under: "15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of life subject to the remission power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 425 , Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 , Sangeet and Anr. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 425 , Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 , Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 2 SCC 764 , Chhote Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 107 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Others, (1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600 ]. 16. In view of the clear decisions over decades, the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused is unsustainable, at the same time, we are not restricting the power of executive as provided in the Constitution of India. For adequate reasons, it is for the said authorities to exercise their power in an appropriate case." 9. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2008 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court would not be till last breath and the case of accused may be reviewed by the appropriate authority after 14 years of his serving sentence considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah (supra). The appellant shall be given benefit of remission and set off. R & P, if lying with this court, to be sent back forthwith.