JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Rita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with Sessions Trial No. 580/2007, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and he has further been sentenced to R.I. for 3 months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 24.07.2007 at about 8 p.m., the informant (Chandra Singh) was in his house along with his family members. It is alleged that at the relevant point of time, Vimal Swansi @ Laddu Singh and the appellant-Sangram Munda had come armed with balua and had forcibly dragged and taken away the deceased Tupan Singh, the father of the informant and killed him by means of fists and bricks. It is also alleged that the informant and others had tried to save the deceased, but they have been threatened with dire consequences. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Karra P.S. Case No. 44/2007 was instituted for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 5. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet pursuant to which cognizance was taken under Sections 452/302/34 I.P.C. and also under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the trial commenced and before recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the co-accused-Vimal Swansi had absconded and accordingly the trial was split up. 6. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W.–1 (Krishna Munda) did not support the case of the prosecution and thus, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W.-2 (Ghana Munda) has deposed that he cannot say as to how Tupan Singh (deceased) had died. 6. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W.–1 (Krishna Munda) did not support the case of the prosecution and thus, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W.-2 (Ghana Munda) has deposed that he cannot say as to how Tupan Singh (deceased) had died. This witness has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext. 2. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list marked as Ext. 1/1. He has stated that on seeing the dead-body of Tupan Singh, his family members were informed. 9. P.W.-3 (Mahendra Singh) is the son of the deceased and an eye-witness. This witness has stated that on 24.07.2007 at about 8 p.m., he was in his house along with his family members including the informant and the deceased. He has deposed that Vimal Swansi and Sangram Munda (appellant) had come with balua and lathi and were asking about the whereabouts of Tupan Singh, who was termed by them as ‘witch’. He has further stated that Tupan Singh on being detected was forcibly dragged by the accused persons and both had started assaulting him. Subsequently, the deceased was taken to a crossing near a tube-well and he was killed. He has further stated that the incident was informed to the police by his brother Chandra Singh (informant). This witness had also signed on the inquest report. He further deposed that both the accused persons used to make allegation against his father of practicing witchcraft. He has further stated that near the place of occurrence, there were several houses. This witness has further stated that his father had suffered several injuries on his person on account of assault being committed upon him by fists, danda and the wooden portion of the balua. 10. P.W.-4 (Sita Devi) is the wife of the deceased. She has deposed that on the date of occurrence, when she was in her house, both the accused persons had forcibly taken away her husband. She has also stated that they had taken him to a crossing near a tube-well and had committed his murder. She has also stated that Vimal Swansi had left his shirt and balua at the place of occurrence. This witness identified both the accused persons in dock. She has also deposed that on hearing alarm, several persons had assembled there. She has also stated that they had taken him to a crossing near a tube-well and had committed his murder. She has also stated that Vimal Swansi had left his shirt and balua at the place of occurrence. This witness identified both the accused persons in dock. She has also deposed that on hearing alarm, several persons had assembled there. She has also stated that there is no enmity with the villagers and the accused persons used to suspect the deceased of practicing witchcraft. 11. P.W.-5 (Munni Devi) is the wife of P.W.-3, who stated that the accused persons had entered into her house armed with balua and danda and had forcibly taken away her father-in-law. She has also stated that they had taken the deceased to a crossing near a tube-well and had committed his murder. She had seen the accused persons assaulting her father-in-law with fists and danda. 12. P.W.-6 (Sukhdeo Kumar Singh) is the grandson of Tupan Singh, who has also supported the occurrence as disclosed by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. This witness has further stated that he had heard the accused persons calling his grandfather a ‘witch’. 13. P.W.-7 (Sarju Pandit) is the Investigating Officer, who, on receiving information about the murder, had made a station diary entry and thereafter, proceeded to the village-Mutapa where he recorded the fardbeyan of Chandra Singh (informant). This witness has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 5. He has also prepared the inquest report and seized one balua and shirt from the place of occurrence. This witness has described the place of occurrence and has also found signs of forcible dragging. He has taken the statements of witnesses and sent the dead-body of the deceased for post-mortem. After receiving the post-mortem report, he submitted the charge-sheet. 14. P.W.-8 (Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha) had conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased Tupan Singh and found the following injuries: External Injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound on left eyebrow size 1 ½” x ½”x bone deep. (ii) Lacerated wound at right eyebrow 1”x ½” into bone deep. (iii) Swelling on fore head right side 1”x1” and on left side 1”x1”. (iv) Lacerated wound on right ear 1” x 1/4 “ x 1/4” (v) Skin around right ear smeared with blood. (vi) Lacerated wound at left elbow 1”x1/2”x1/2”. (ii) Lacerated wound at right eyebrow 1”x ½” into bone deep. (iii) Swelling on fore head right side 1”x1” and on left side 1”x1”. (iv) Lacerated wound on right ear 1” x 1/4 “ x 1/4” (v) Skin around right ear smeared with blood. (vi) Lacerated wound at left elbow 1”x1/2”x1/2”. (vii) Swelling on right upper arm 2”x2” (viii) Abrasion right knee 1”x1” (ix) Abrasion left knee 1”x1” (x) Depressed area on right side of chest 2”x2” On Dissection:- (i) Fracture of frontal bone and right humerous bone (ii) Fracture of right ribs Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 (iii) Lacerated tissues with clots at all fracture side. (iv) Right lung lacerated 1”x1” with cavity deep surrounded with clots Cause of death- Due to haemorrhage and shock caused by hard and blunt substance. Time elapsed since death- 24 hours. At the time of post-mortem examination, the doctor opined that the fracture of frontal bone may be caused by lathies. Frontier of ribs may be caused by hard leg striking. Other injuries may be possible by heavy lathi injuries. Above injuries are sufficient to cause death. 15. The appellant was put to his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had denied to have participated in the commission of offence. 16. It has been submitted by Ms. Rita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. She has further submitted that as per the prosecution, the dead-body of the deceased Tupan Singh was lying near the tube-well whole night and none of his family members had taken back his dead-body to their house, which is an unnatural conduct on the part of the said persons. It has further been submitted that as per the version of P.W. 4, several persons of the locality had assembled, but not a single independent eye-witness has come forward to depose against the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the evidences of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are wholly unreliable in view of the fact that they are the partisan witnesses being related to the deceased Tupan Singh. The learned trial court should not have placed undue reliance on the evidence of the said witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that surprisingly, the informant-Chandra Singh was never examined by the prosecution, which further dilutes the prosecution case. The learned trial court should not have placed undue reliance on the evidence of the said witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that surprisingly, the informant-Chandra Singh was never examined by the prosecution, which further dilutes the prosecution case. It is further submitted that there is delay in instituting the first information report as the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 8.00 p.m., but the police was informed on the next day and no reasonable explanation has been put forward by the prosecution for such inordinate delay in institution of the first information report. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 17. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P. for the State has, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment by submitting that P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence and merely because they are related to the deceased, the same cannot, in any way, dissuade or dilute their evidences. It has been further submitted that the medical evidence sufficiently corroborates the ocular evidence inasmuch as the doctor has also opined that the death was caused on account of injuries suffered by the deceased by hard and blunt substance and, in fact, from the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that apart from fists and danda, the wooden portion of balua was also used in assaulting the deceased. He has further submitted that the evidence also reveals that the accused persons used to allege against the deceased of practicing witchcraft for the last two years and the same was a sufficient motive for the accused persons in committing murder of the deceased. 18. We have gone through the Lower Court Records as well as considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The conviction of the appellant is primarily based on the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. In fact, there appears to be two place of occurrences. First being the house of the deceased-Tupan Singh from where the accused Vimal Swansi and Sangram Munda had forcibly dragged the deceased. The second place of occurrence is the tube-well near the crossing where the deceased was forcibly taken and was brutally assaulted by the accused persons leading to his death. First being the house of the deceased-Tupan Singh from where the accused Vimal Swansi and Sangram Munda had forcibly dragged the deceased. The second place of occurrence is the tube-well near the crossing where the deceased was forcibly taken and was brutally assaulted by the accused persons leading to his death. The first occurrence has been conclusively supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 inasmuch as these witnesses were present in the house when the accused persons had come searching for Tupan Singh and on having found Tupan Singh, they had forcibly dragged him. Protests were made by P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, but they were threatened by the accused persons and subsequently, both the accused persons had committed murder of the deceased near the tube-well. In fact, the witnesses have also seen the occurrence, which had taken place near the tube-well where the dead-body of the deceased-Tupan Singh was ultimately found. The Investigating Officer, who was subsequently examined as P.W. 7, has categorically revealed that the place of occurrence also showed signs of dragging, which further substantiates the case of prosecution regarding the involvement of the accused persons. Although, the learned counsel for the appellant has stressed much upon the non-examination of any independent witness in spite of their presence as disclosed by P.W. 4, but such non-examination would not be fatal to the prosecution case in view of the consistent and overwhelming evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Merely because P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are related to the deceased-Tupan Singh, they cannot be termed to be partisan witnesses as there appears to be sufficient corroboration in their evidences, which is a wholly reliable and trustworthy piece of evidence. 19. In the case of “Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab” reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 , which is one of the earliest cases with respect to appreciation of the evidence of interested witnesses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “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. 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.” 20. In the case of “Piara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab” reported in (1977) 4 SCC 452 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. 21. Similar was the view of a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hari Obula Reddy & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in (1981) 3 SCC 675 , which reads as under: “13. …it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon.” 22. What would fall from the aforesaid pronouncements is that the evidences of all related witnesses are to be scrutinized with more caution and circumspection, but such evidence cannot be brushed aside simply on the plea that they are related to the deceased and, therefore, are partisan witnesses. As we have stated above that on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, their evidence leads credence to the fact that it was the appellant along with Vimal Swansi, who had forcibly entered into the house, dragged out Tupan Singh and ultimately committed his murder near the tube-well. The sanctity of the evidence of P.Ws. As we have stated above that on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, their evidence leads credence to the fact that it was the appellant along with Vimal Swansi, who had forcibly entered into the house, dragged out Tupan Singh and ultimately committed his murder near the tube-well. The sanctity of the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, therefore, cannot be diluted or brushed aside merely because plea has been taken by the appellant that they are the interested witnesses in view of the reliability and the corroborative nature of their evidences. 23. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding non-examination of the informant is concerned, such non-examination would not be fatal to the prosecution case in the backdrop of the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 as discussed by us earlier, which proves the participation of the appellant in the commission of the murder of Tupan Singh. The defence has failed to make a dent in the evidences of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6. In fact, the ocular evidence of the prosecution witness has been duly supported by the medical evidence. Such witnesses, therefore, are reliable and trustworthy and their testimony inspires confidence and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The prosecution, therefore, having proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and accordingly, having found no merit in this appeal, the same is, hereby, dismissed.