JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the three appellants, Nepal, Puttu Lal and Shyam Lal against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Spl. Judge), Bareilly in Session Trial No. 1 of 1986, who has found them guilty and convicted for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.8.1985 PW1 Smt. Urmila Devi was sleeping in her courtyard with her husband and two young daughters, Pinki and Meera. At 11 p.m. in the night Nepal, appellant no. 1, Puttu, appellant no. 2 and Shyam Lal, appellant no. 3 entered into her house. Shyam Lal and Nepal were armed with country made pistols and Puttu had a lathi. When appellants came in the house, the domestic dog of the family started barking. The PW1 and her daughters woke up. She saw that Nepal and Puttu were standing near her and her children. They threatened them not to sound any alarm. 3. Shyam Lal alias Shyamu was standing near her husband and on the exhortation of Nepal, Shyamu fired at her husband from close range. Her husband sustained serious injuries. When they raised an alarm her neighbour Amar Singh, Devendra Pal and Dharampal came with their torches. The assailants fled away from the spot. She has deposed that her deceased husband immediately after the incident had disclosed the names of the assailants. He had recognised them. It was stated that the complainant took her husband for his treatment on a tractor but he died on his way to hospital. His body was, therefore, kept in Faridpur Hospital. She has stated that assailants were nourishing grudges against her husband due to long standing enmity. Upon the said complaint the first information report was registered at 12:20 in the night. PW2 Devendra Pal Singh is the scribe of the F.I.R. 4. PW4 S.I. Jasvir Singh reached at Primary Health Centre, Faridpur where the dead body of the deceased Shripal Singh was lying. He conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.Ka-3) and sent the dead body of the deceased to the morturary for postmortem. PW4 S.I. Jasvir Singh reached at Primary Health Centre, Faridpur where the dead body of the deceased Shripal Singh was lying. He conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.Ka-3) and sent the dead body of the deceased to the morturary for postmortem. The copy of inquest is on the record which shows that five persons who were witnessed of inquest had signed. 5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to PW6 H.S. Bargotri. At the time of registration of the F.I.R. PW6 was not present at Police Station-Faridpur, hence the inquest on the dead body of the deceased was undertaken by PW4 S.I. Jasvir Singh. Later the investigation was taken up by PW6. 6. He recorded the statement of complainant Smt. Urmila Devi PW1 and collected blood stained earth from the spot and prepared the fard (Ext. Ka10). From the spot he recovered a pellet also and its fard was also prepared. The Investigating Officer has also prepared the fard of lantern. He has also taken torch from one of the witness Devendra Pal and its fard was also prepared. He also recorded the statements of Amar Singh, Ranbir, Dharampal and Smt. Meera. All of the accused were absconding. 7. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai on 13.8.1985 at 4:00 p.m. who issued the postmortem report (Ext.Ka-3). PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai noted following antemortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased : 1. Gunshot wound of entry 4.1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 2.1/2 cm abdominal cavity deep on the front of chest lower part of midline region 1.1/2 cm below the xiphisternum. The margins of wound are inverted and irregular. Blackening present around the wound. The wound is directed backward and towards right side. The shots have lacerated the medial lobe of liver fracturing the lower ribs of right side chest in the anterior part. There is fracture of fourth and fifth ribs. One cork wedding recovered from the liver. 2. 5 gunshot wounds of exit in an area of 9 cm x 6 cm on the right side chest lateral part, 2 cm lateral to right nipple – each wound is measuring 1.1/2 cm x 3/4cm, the margins are averted. 3. There is fracture of fourth and fifth ribs. One cork wedding recovered from the liver. 2. 5 gunshot wounds of exit in an area of 9 cm x 6 cm on the right side chest lateral part, 2 cm lateral to right nipple – each wound is measuring 1.1/2 cm x 3/4cm, the margins are averted. 3. Four punctured wounds (gunshot wounds of entry) in an area of 9.1/2 cm x 6.1/2 cm in the medial side of right upper arm – the margins are inverted – each wound measuring 1.1/2 cm x 3/4 cm – all are muscle deep. 4. The fourth wound is corresponding to the fourth wound of injury no. 2. 5. Four metallic pellets palpable on the infero-lateral aspect on upper part of right arm the course of four wounds of injury no. 3 are ending at these palpable pallets. Four metallic shots recovered. 8. According to the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was shock and heamorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 9. On internal examination, the Doctor found four metallic shots and one wadding in the body. Partly digested food materials were present in the large and small intestines. Fourth and fifth ribs of right side were fractured. 10. The Investigating Officer PW6 H.S. Bargotri after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellants Nepal, Puttu and Shyam Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. 11. The Magistrate has committed the matter to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly after hearing the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 12. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Urmila, PW2 Devendra Pal Singh, PW3 Pinki, PW4 S.I. Jasvir Singh, PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai and PW6 H.S. Bargotri. The defence had also called Dr. A.K. Bajpai as defence witness. 13. After the evidence were recorded, all the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and the circumstances against them, all the appellants denied their involvement in the said crime. 14. The trial court after considering the evidence of the witnesses, defence plea and the material placed before it found that the appellants had committed the murder of the deceased Shripal. 14. The trial court after considering the evidence of the witnesses, defence plea and the material placed before it found that the appellants had committed the murder of the deceased Shripal. The trial court found that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt, hence it convicted all the three appellants for the offence of murder of Shripal punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Sri Vishesh Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that eye witnesses PW1 Urmila, wife of the deceased and PW3 Pinki, daughter of the deceased have stated that Shyam Lal had fired only one shot at her husband but the nature of injuries recorded in the postmortem report as well as from the evidence of PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai, it is evident that the said injury could not have been caused only by single shot. He further submitted that there was no source of light on the spot, hence it was not possible to identify the accused. He next submitted that the evidence regarding the enmity was a hearsay evidence. He also submitted that the two witnesses namely, Amar Singh and Devendra Pal Singh were not produced by the prosecution at the time of trial which makes the prosecution case doubtful. He lastly submitted that the statements of PW1 and PW3 who are the wife and daughter of the deceased respectively are liable to be discarded as they are interested and partisan witnesses. 17. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the deceased before his death had disclosed the names of all the assailants. He further submitted that the testimony of PW1 and PW3 fully corroborates the prosecution case. Both the witnesses are the eye witness, hence their testimony is trustworthy. He next submitted that from the statement of PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai and the perusal of the postmortem report, it is evident that the injury was caused by one gun shot. He also submitted that there was sufficient source of light at the spot and PW1 and PW3 could identify the accused persons in the said light as PW1 and PW3 knew all the accused very well. 18. PW1 Smt. Urmila is the wife of the deceased, she has deposed that her husband Shripal at the request of Shyam Lal had lend Rs. 18. PW1 Smt. Urmila is the wife of the deceased, she has deposed that her husband Shripal at the request of Shyam Lal had lend Rs. 500/-to him but Shyam Lal did not return the said amount in spite of the repeated request made by the deceased Shripal. Later Shyam Lal shifted to another place near Khudaganj. Shripal had gone there, demanding his money which annoyed Shyam Lal and he threatened him with dire consequences. 19. It was also stated that a day before the incident the deceased wanted to irrigate his field from a nearby pond, all the accused who were present at the pond prevented her husband from taking the pond's water to his field on the ground that they have sown 'Singhara' in the pond and they would not allow to use the water from the pond. They have also threatened him. 20. In the following night when Shripal (deceased) his wife Urmila and his daughter Pinki were sleeping in the 'Angan' of their house, a lantern was burning in the courtyard. She saw that all the three accused namely, Nepal, Puttu and Shyam Lal entered into her house. Puttu was armed with lathi, Nepal and Shyam Lal had country made pistol in their hands. The domestic dog had started barking at the accused. First of all PW1 woke up and she saw that Nepal was standing near her cot. Puttu was standing near her daughter and Shyam Lal was standing near the cot of her husband. When PW1 tried to raise an alarm, Nepal threatened her and on his exhortation Shyam Lal fired with his country made pistol at her husband Shripal. She further deposed that she had immediately sounded the alarm when she woke up. Upon hearing her alarm Amar Singh, Devendra Singh and Dharampal Singh all their neighbour came to her house with torch and lathi. Amar Singh was carrying torch and Dharampal had lathi. On their reaching at the spot all the accused fled away from the western door of the house. Her husband was alive and he told her that he had seen the accused and recognized them and he had mentioned their names. She took her injured husband on a tractor of Devendra Pal for medical treatment but before reaching the hospital her husband succumbed to his injuries on the way of hospital. Her husband was alive and he told her that he had seen the accused and recognized them and he had mentioned their names. She took her injured husband on a tractor of Devendra Pal for medical treatment but before reaching the hospital her husband succumbed to his injuries on the way of hospital. She had dictated the complaint to Devendra Pal and on that basis F.I.R. was lodged. She in her statement had given the detailed description regarding availability of source of light. The lantern which was lighting towards the left veranda was shown to the Investigating Officer who had prepared its fard (Ext.Ka-2) and returned to her. 21. In the site plan the lantern was kept at place C, the deceased was sleeping at the place shown as A. The distance between the cot at place A and C where lantern was burning is not very far rather it is a few feet away. In Angan which is open area the light of lantern, was sufficient to recognise the persons who were acquainted to the PW1. 22. For the reason discussed above, we find that there was sufficient light from the lantern which enable them to recognise the appellants. All the appellants were known to PW1 and in the light of lantern she could have recognized them. 23. Hence, we find no force in the submission of learned Amicus Curiae regarding source of light. 24. PW2 is Devendra Pal Singh who has been declared hostile, stated that his house is situated about 50 meters from the house of the deceased. He admitted that he had written the complaint on the dictation of Smt. Urmala Devi, PW1 and after scribing it he had handed over the same to PW1 who has proved the document. He has denied his 161 Cr.P.C. statement on the ground that he had made the statement at the instance of police. 25. PW3 Pinki is the daughter of the deceased. She was also sleeping in the Angan at the time of incident. She has stated that a lantern was burning. She woke up when her dog started barking. Then she saw Nepal and Shyam Lal were standing near her cot. They were armed with country made pistols and Puttu was armed with lathi. She was also sleeping in the Angan at the time of incident. She has stated that a lantern was burning. She woke up when her dog started barking. Then she saw Nepal and Shyam Lal were standing near her cot. They were armed with country made pistols and Puttu was armed with lathi. Near her and her sister's cot Puttu was standing and Nepal was standing near the cot of her mother and Shyam Lal was standing near her father. Nepal threatened them and cautioned that if they try to raise any alarm they will face the serious consequences. Nepal also exhorted Shyam Lal to kill Shripal and on his exhortation Shyam Lal fired with his country made pistol at his father. When her father was injured all of them started crying as they were horrified and sounded the alarm. She also stated the fact that upon hearing their shout Devendra Singh, Amar Singh and Dharampal Singh came in their house. Devendra Singh and Amar Singh were having torches in their hands and Dharampal Singh was having a lathi. After the aforesaid persons arrived at the spot, all the accused fled away from their house towards west. She also deposed that her father was alive when he was in the house and he was speaking. He was taken to the hospital for medical treatment on a tractor, but he died on the way. She was subjected to long cross-examination. She had also vividly recalled by mentioning all the facts regarding position of her father. When Nepal threatened them, she sounded the alarm. Her father woke up and when he tried to sit on his cot, at that moment Shyam Lal fired at him from a close range. She has deposed that when all the accused fled away from the spot, her father called her mother and told her that he had recognized Nepal, Shyam Lal and Puttu. She has further stated that after her father was injured the accused Shyam Lal tried to reload his country made pistol but at that time her neighbour Devendra Singh, Dharampal and Amar Singh came on the spot and all the accused ran away. 26. PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. She has further stated that after her father was injured the accused Shyam Lal tried to reload his country made pistol but at that time her neighbour Devendra Singh, Dharampal and Amar Singh came on the spot and all the accused ran away. 26. PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He had stated that the gun shot wound of entry 4 and ½ cm, 2 and ½ cm had entered into abdominal cavity deep on the front of chest lower part of the medial side of right upper arm. He has stated that cork wadding was found in the body. He also stated that injury no. 4 which has made palpable was corresponding to injury no. 3. In his opinion the cause of death was due to the aforesaid injuries. 27. PW4 Jasvir Singh is the Sub-Inspector who has prepared the inquest and visited the spot. Later PW6 H.S. Bargotri took over the investigation. 28. The learned Amicus Curiae has laid much emphasis on the postmortem report and the evidence of PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai who has conducted the autopsy to demonstrate that eye witnesses' version that only one shot was fired is not corroborated by the postmortem report. 29. He further submitted that two eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 have stated that only one fire was shot by Shyam Lal but from the postmortem report and the statement of PW5 Dr. A.K. Bajpai, it reveals that there were five gun shots wounds of exit and one gun shot wound of entry. He has pointed out that these exit gun shots injuries establishes that more than one fire was shot and it was not possible to cause such number of injuries from one gun shot. He submitted that the statement of witnesses PW1 and PW3 cannot be believed in this regard. 30. From the postmortem report and the statement of Doctor, it is evident that there was one gun shot injury 4 x ½ cm x ½ cm and 2 and ½ cm on the abdominal cavity deep in front of chest and lower part of midline region. 30. From the postmortem report and the statement of Doctor, it is evident that there was one gun shot injury 4 x ½ cm x ½ cm and 2 and ½ cm on the abdominal cavity deep in front of chest and lower part of midline region. The blackening was present around the wound and the wound is directed backwards and towards right side, it appears that pallets caused fracture of 4th and 5th ribs and they got reflected after fracturing 4th and 5th ribs and made an exit in an area of 9 x 6 cm on the right side chest. At the place of exit one wound was measured 1 and ½ cm x ¾ cm. The Doctor has clearly mentioned that 5th wound is corresponding to 4th wound of injury no. 2 so it is clear that the pellets of the same shot after it was reflected came out of body and they made a palpable of four metallic pellets on the antero-lateral aspect of upper part of right arm and four metallic pallets were recovered. All the injuries clearly demonstrate that these injuries were caused by a single shot as it was fired from the country made pistol. The presence of cork wadding from the liver and presence of blackening at the anterior part clearly shows that the fire was shot from very close range. 31. PW1 and PW3 both have stated that Shyam Lal had fired from very close range. The trial Court has found the evidence of PW1 and PW3 trustworthy and reliable. 32. We see no reason to entertain any doubt regarding their truthfulness. As a matter of fact the evidence of those two witnesses is cogent and inspire confidence. 33. It is trite that the medical opinion need not be treated as the last word on the subject. The eye witness account can not be discarded by accord undue privacy to the hypothetical answers of the medical witnesses. If the Court finds that the oral evidence is credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to other possibility can not be accepted as conclusive, unless the oral evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the ballistic expert and the prosecution has failed to explain those inconsistencies. If the Court finds that the oral evidence is credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to other possibility can not be accepted as conclusive, unless the oral evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the ballistic expert and the prosecution has failed to explain those inconsistencies. In that event the medical opinion makes a serious dent in prosecution's case but the fact remains that the ocular evidence as a primacy over the medical evidence. 34. Reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath vs. State of Haryana, AIR (1995) 5 SCC 96 . “it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue privacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses account, which has to be tested independently and not treated as 'variable' keeping in view the medical evidence as constant.” 35. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174 the Supreme Court noted as follow: “Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye-witnessess, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.” 36. The above principle of law has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 the Court has referred to Maniram vs. State of U.P., 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242: State of U.P. vs. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566 : State of U.P. vs. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542 and culled out the following principle :- “39. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 the Court has referred to Maniram vs. State of U.P., 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242: State of U.P. vs. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566 : State of U.P. vs. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542 and culled out the following principle :- “39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.” 37. Applying the aforesaid principle in the facts of the present case, we find that there is no contradiction between medical evidence and the oral evidence in the present case. 38. The medical evidence also lends credence to the prosecution case against the appellants. The postmortem report also points out conclusively to the culpability of appellants for the commission of the offence. 39. Now considering the submission of learned Amicus curiae that PW1 and PW3 are relatives and interested witnesses, being wife and daughter hence their statements should not be relied upon. 40. The above noted submission was considered by Supreme Court elaborately way back in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 . The Court observed that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit who has caused the death and implicate an innocence person. His/her evidence can only be discarded when it is established that the witness has a cause, due to enmity to implicate him falsely. In Dalip Singh (supra) case also the testimonies of two women witnesses was impeached on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. Following principles were enunciated in Dalip Singh (supra):- “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.” 41. In Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452 , same principles were reiterated:- “4. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of the three eye-witneses, namely, P.W. 3 Harbhajan Singh, P.W. 5 Chanan Kaur and P. W. 6 Kesar Kaur. It is true that the three witnesses were relations of the deceased and bore animus against the accused but as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the deceased these persons were the natural witnesses and were in fact sitting in the court-yard when the occurrence took place. It may be difficult to get witnesses from the village when an assault of the type suddenly takes place in the house of the deceased. It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. The High Court was fully alive to these principles and has in fact found that the evidence of these three witnesses has a ring of truth. After having perused the evidence ourselves also we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has not made any attempt to dwell into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of these witnesses but has rejected them mainly on general grounds most of which are either unsupportable in law or based on speculation. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. There is also the evidence of Balbir Singh, P. W. 17, who is a Sarpanch of the village and an independent witness and who proves that the appellant Piara Singh had made an extra judicial confession before him in which he admitted to have committed the murder of the deceased Surjit Singh along with his companions Kashmir Singh, Gian Singh and Joginder Singh. This witness also proves that Kashmir Singh on being narrated by the details made a disclosure which resulted in the recovery of the Kirpan from the sugar-cane field of Meja Singh for which a search list was prepared and the Kirpan was also found stained with human blood. According to the Investigating Officer an empty cartridge was also found at the spot and he sent the same to the Ballistic Expert along with the rifle recovered from Piara Singh who was a constable in the Border Security Force and the Ballistic-Expert found that the empty could have been shot from the rifle in question. These circumstances fully corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Finally, there is the medical evidence of Dr. Jatinder Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased and he found as many as 7 incised wounds on the various parts of the body of the deceased and 7 incised punctured wounds on some vital parts of the body. Apart from these injuries the deceased had also sustained a gun shot injury with a wound of entry and exit on the left buttock, which according to Dr. Jatinder Singh could be; caused by a fire-arm including a rifle. The Doctor further deposed that the contusions and abrasions were caused by a blunt weapon and the other incised wounds were caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the Gandasa. Another Doctor was examined by the Sessions Judge as Court Witness No. 1 who on seeing the post-mortem report of Dr. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh.” 42. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh.” 42. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 observed 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.” 43. Again in S. Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 163, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more oftern than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 15. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dilip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses.” 44. In this context the reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 16 SCC 164: Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2015) 1 SCC 776 . 45. In this context the reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 16 SCC 164: Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2015) 1 SCC 776 . 45. In the case of Ashok Rai vs. State of U.P., (2014) 5 SCC 713 the facts are some what similar. In that case also wife of deceased was sleeping near to her husband when her husband was shot. The testimony of wife was relied by the Court in following terms:- “13. The most important witness is PW4 Bijula Devi, the wife of deceased Kailash Rai. She was sleeping in the ahata in the courtyard, on the same cot along with her husband deceased Kailash Rai in the night in question. She is the most natural witness. Her clothes were found bloodstained. According to the serologist's report the blood group of the blood found on her clothes matched the blood group of the blood found on her husband's clothes. Her presence in the house at the dead of night cannot be doubted.” 46. In Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and another, (2013) 12 SCC 796 also, there was similar fact. In this case, husband was eye witness when his wife was shot by the accused persons from a window. The incident had taken place in the night when husband and wife were sleeping in bed room on cot. In that case, also a lamp was burning near the cot as the home did not have any electric light. The Supreme Court set aside Judgment of the High Court amongst other ground that High Court has referred some discrepancies which were found by the Supreme Court in the realm of minor discrepancies. The Court held as under:- “28. As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies. It is worthy to note that the High Court has referred to the some discrepancies which we find are absolutely in the realm of minor discrepancies. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission of discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies, It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (see Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 , Rammi v. State of MP. (1999) 8 SCC 649 , and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B.) (2012) 7 SCC 646 .” 47. In the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 2 SCC 734 , the Supreme Court held as under:- “Some argument was advanced on there being lack of any clear motive but that is not at all necessary or material when the offences have been proved by clear and cogent evidence including eye-witnesses.” 48. Thus, we find unbroken line of authorities to the effect that evidence of eye witness, if found forceful, cannot be discarded simply because the witness was a relative of the deceased. The only caveat is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. 49. Submission of Amicus Curiae that there was no motive to kill Shripal, we did not find any force in said submission, firstly the presence of appellants on the spot have been proved by PW1 and PW3. PW2 Devendra Pal Singh has been declared hostile but he had corroborated the statement of PW1 that after the incident she had dictated the complaint to him and he had scribe the complaint and she had marked her thumb impression (Ext. Ka-1). PW2 Devendra Pal Singh has been declared hostile but he had corroborated the statement of PW1 that after the incident she had dictated the complaint to him and he had scribe the complaint and she had marked her thumb impression (Ext. Ka-1). In his cross-examination he has admitted that his house is fifteen meters away from the house of the deceased. 50. Close scrutiny of the eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 to show that they witnessed the incident in question. The evidence of PW5, Dr. A.K. Bajpai who conducted the postmortem and the postmortem report also points out conclusively to the culpability of appellants for the commission of the offences. It is trite law that in case of direct evidence the motive loses its significance. If the evidence of the eye witnesses is trustworthy, there is no need to establish any motive. The diversity of human nature and its potentiality to conceal its actions and emotions makes the prosecution to establish it. However in the case of circumstantial evidence, when there is no eye witness, the motive has an important role. In such cases, prosecution is obliged to prove the presence of motive. 51. Reference may be made to the Judgment of Supreme Court. Atley Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 ; Balram Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC 286 ; Birendra Das Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 236 . 52. From the statement of PW1 and PW3, we are satisfied about the commission of offence by the appellants. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of trial Court, we are satisfied that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and learned Amicus Curiae could not point out any perversity in the finding of trial court. 53. Thus, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the recorded conviction of the appellants and the sentence awarded to them by the impugned judgment and order 24.12.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Spl. Judge), Bareilly in Session Trial No. 1 of 1986, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 54. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 55. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 56. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae Shri Vishesh Kumar. Sessions Judge (Spl. Judge), Bareilly in Session Trial No. 1 of 1986, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 54. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 55. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 56. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae Shri Vishesh Kumar. An honorarium of Rs.11,000/-is directed to be paid to the learned amicus curiae for rendering effective assistance in the matter. The said amount be paid to him within a period of one month.