JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Pankaj Rana against the judgment dated 20.06.2014, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Abu Road in Sessions Case No. 01/2013, whereby the accused- appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 6 months Additional imprisonment. 4/25 Arms Act Three Years Rs. 2,000/- 3 months Additional imprisonment. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted are that a written report (Ex.P.4) was filed by Sanjay Kumar (PW-3) at Police Station Rohida, District Sirohi to the effect that on 09.10.2012, his elder brother Lalit Kumar was at home. At around 6.30 p.m. his brother was sitting near the Anganwadi Centre in the Village. While he was sitting there, Pankaj Rana who was living in their locality came and suddenly attacked his brother with a knife. His brother raised a hue and cry and on hearing the same, he, his mother, his sister-in-law and his uncles Kantilal and Mani Lal reached the place of incident and saw his brother lying in a pool of blood in an unconscious state. After assaulting his brother with a knife, Pankaj Rana ran away from the place of incident. His brother was taken to Rohida Hospital where the doctor was on leave and, therefore, he was taken to Trauma Centre at Abu Road. On reaching the Trauma Centra, the doctor declared him dead. Pankaj Rana and his mother Amiya Rana often indulged in quarrels with Lalit Kumar and for this reason, they were bearing ill-will towards him. Pankaj Rana, with the aid of his mother Amiya Rana inflicted knife injuries to his brother resulting into his death. 3. On the aforesaid written report, a formal FIR No. 99/2012 was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC at the Police Station Rohida, District Sirohi. 4. After completion of the investigation, police filed a chargesheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to the accused appellant who denied the charge and sought trial. 6. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to the accused appellant who denied the charge and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and 25 documents were got exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that brother of the deceased Sanjay is working in the Police department. There are number of cases filed against him, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Kantilal who is uncle of Sanjay is keeping enmity with him. On earlier occasions, he called Gangster from the Ahmedabad for assaulting/killing him. Since they could not kill him, they have falsely implicated him in the case. Police has not taken the samples of his blood for examination. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 20.06.2014. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has fervently argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case as the relationship between the complainant and the appellant is not very cordial. There are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. All the eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal are close relatives of the deceased. They are interested witnesses, therefore, testimony of these witnesses is not reliable and should be discarded. 11. He further submits that as per site plan (Ex.P.6), it is clear that number of houses are situated near the place of incident but the prosecution failed to produce any independent witness in the witness box. This clearly goes to show that the entire case has been fabricated and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. 12. Learned counsel contended that during the cross-examination of PW-14 Dr. This clearly goes to show that the entire case has been fabricated and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. 12. Learned counsel contended that during the cross-examination of PW-14 Dr. Sareen Kumar, it has been stated that if the blood transfusion by a universal donor would have been made to the deceased, there were chances to save him. There was no motive and intention to cause fatal injuries to the deceased Lalit and the incident happened at the spur of the moment after a heated altercation between the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is required to be converted from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. 13. Learned counsel urged that PW-8 Vishnu Kumar, who witnessed the incident and could have actually narrated the sequence of events, has not supported the case of the prosecution as he has been declared hostile. 14. Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments submits that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that present appellant was guilty of the offence alleged in the present case and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the alleged offence as above vide Judgment dated 20.06.2014, which deserves to be set aside in appeal and the accused-appellant may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 15. Per contra, learned public prosecutor, while supporting the judgment dated 20.06.2014 has submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. He further submits that the testimony of PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal cannot be discredited only on the ground that they are interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. He further submits that they are natural witnesses being inhabitants of the house in which Lalit was staying and his uncles were staying in the close vicinity of the place where the incident occurred. 17. He further submits that the testimony of the eye witnesses is completely corroborated from the medical evidence. PW-14 Dr. Sareen Kumar has clearly described the site and dimensions of the injuries caused to the deceased Lalit. The postmortem report (Ex.P.19) shows the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries fortifying the ocular evidence. 17. He further submits that the testimony of the eye witnesses is completely corroborated from the medical evidence. PW-14 Dr. Sareen Kumar has clearly described the site and dimensions of the injuries caused to the deceased Lalit. The postmortem report (Ex.P.19) shows the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries fortifying the ocular evidence. The recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Knife (Ex.P.14) on the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.21) & the FSL Report (Ex.P.18) showing the presence of blood group ‘A’ on the weapon of offence i.e. Knife tallied with the bloodstains on the Baniyan of the deceased complete the chain of circumstances establishing the fact that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the commission of the offences alleged. 18. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully and threadbare perused the entire evidence available on record. 19. PW-3 Sanjay Kumar being brother of deceased stated that on 09.10.2012 in the evening while he was at his house, Pankaj Rana who lives in their locality suddenly came at the spot having a knife in his hand and inflicted injuries on the neck, ribs, chest and hands of his brother and, thereafter, ran away from the place of incident. He ran towards his brother and tried to hold him. His mother, sister-in-law and uncles also came on the spot. The incident took place at the Anganwadi Centre. His brother Lalit was taken to the Trauma Centre, Abu Road where the doctors declared him dead. The written report of this incident was filed by him. He signed certain memos prepared by the police during the course of investigation. The person who inflicted knife blows to his brother is present in the Court. He can identify him. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief. 20. PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi (mother of the deceased) and PW-12 Kavita (wife of the deceased) deposed in their testimony regarding the incident as has been narrated in the statement of PW-3 Sanjay Kumar. 21. 20. PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi (mother of the deceased) and PW-12 Kavita (wife of the deceased) deposed in their testimony regarding the incident as has been narrated in the statement of PW-3 Sanjay Kumar. 21. PW-13 Manilal being uncle of the deceased stated that on the fateful day when he heard the noise of Lalit, he went to the place of incident and saw Pankaj Rana assaulting Lalit with a knife. Lalit sustained stab injuries on his right hand, neck, chest and the ribs. After inflicting injuries, Pankaj Rana ran away from the spot. 22. PW-15 Kantilal being uncle of deceased stated that when he heard hue and cries of Lalit, he went outside and saw that Pankaj Rana was holding knife in his hand and ran away after inflicting injuries to Lalit. His house is situated 50 feet away from the Anganwadi Centre. 23. PW-14 Dr. Sareen Kumar described the dimensions and places of the injuries sustained on the body of Lalit. He was member of the Medical Board which conducted autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that as per opinion of the board, the cause of death of the deceased was multiple stab wounds causing haemorrhagic shock. 24. PW-19 Narpal Singh was the Police Officer, who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared site plan, recorded statements of the witnesses, effected recoveries as prescribed under the law. 25. Postmortem report is Ex.P.19 wherein the cause of death of deceased Lalit is shown as haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries. The information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is Ex.P.21. The recovery memo of weapon of offence i.e. Knife is Ex.P.14. The FSL Report is Ex.P.18 wherein the presence of blood group ‘A’ on the weapon of offence i.e. Knife tallied with the bloodstains found on the Baniyan of deceased. 26. The statements of PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal to the effect that the stab wounds were caused by Pankaj Rana are crystal clear and consistent and without any deviation showing that accused came to Lalit with a knife and suddenly inflicted number of knife blows repeatedly due to which he sustained the fatal injuries. When he cried, PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal came on the spot. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Merely because PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal are close relatives, their testimony cannot be discarded. They are natural witnesses. Since all of them live in the close vicinity, they immediately reached the spot on hearing cries of Lalit and saw the appellant inflicting injuries upon him. The appellant ran away from the place of incident on seeing the witness. Since the appellant was also a neighbour, there was no problem in identifying him on the spot. 27. Our view is supported by the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 10 to 11 in the case of Md. Rojali Ali and Others vs. State of Assam, Ministry of Home Affairs, which read as under:- “10. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an 'interested' witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between 'interested' and 'related' witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the Accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused. State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 , Amit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107 and Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 . Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge bench decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki (supra): 14. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested." A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an Accused person punished. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested." A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an Accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested...." 11. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 , wherein this Court observed: 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....” 28. Our view is also supported by the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para nos. 24 to 28 in the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh, AIR 2016 SC 5160 , which read as under:- “24. On the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1954 SCR 145 , is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as follows: “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.” 25. Similarly, in Piara Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977) 4 SCC 452 , this Court held: “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.” 26. In Hari Obula Reddy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675 , a three-judge Bench of this Court observed: “........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.” 27. Again, in Ramashish Rai vs. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 , the following observations were made by this Court: “The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence.” 28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 , State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456 , Bhagalool Lodh and Another vs. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206 , Dahari and Others vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256 , Raju @ Balachandran and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701 , Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 298 and Jodhan vs. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52 .” 29. Therefore, solely on this ground that they are interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded. 30. The ocular evidence in the shape of statements of the eye witnesses is completely corroborated from the medical evidence as PW-14 Dr. Sareen Kumar has described the location of injuries sustained by the deceased, their nature and dimensions fortifying the testimony of the eye witnesses. The injuries mentioned by the eye witnesses also gets corroborated from the postmortem report (Ex.P.19). The ocular evidence in the shape of statements of the eye witnesses is completely corroborated from the medical evidence as PW-14 Dr. Sareen Kumar has described the location of injuries sustained by the deceased, their nature and dimensions fortifying the testimony of the eye witnesses. The injuries mentioned by the eye witnesses also gets corroborated from the postmortem report (Ex.P.19). The recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Knife (Ex.P.14) on the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.21), the FSL Report (Ex.P.18) showing the presence of blood group ‘A’ on the weapon of offence i.e. Knife tallied with the bloodstains Baniyan of the deceased complete the chain of circumstances fortifying the fact that it was none other than the appellant who inflicted fatal blows to the deceased. 31. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that during the cross-examination of PW-14 Sareen Kumar, he has stated that if the blood transfusion from the universal donor would have been made, the deceased could have been saved is of no help as the appellant cannot be absolved of his act of assaulting Lalit with a dangerous weapon like knife. Therefore, argument of the learned counsel is devoid of merit and hence, the same is rejected. 32. Merely there were number of houses and no independent witnesses were produced by the prosecution cannot discredit the testimony of the eye witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased and merely because they are close relatives, their testimony is required to be discarded is noted to be rejected in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Md. Rojali Ali and Others vs. State of Assam and Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh (supra). 33. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that PW-8 Vishnu Kumar has been declared hostile who would have actually narrated the incident also does not help the appellant as the eye witnesses PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal have already narrated the sequence of events in their testimony. 34. 33. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that PW-8 Vishnu Kumar has been declared hostile who would have actually narrated the incident also does not help the appellant as the eye witnesses PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, PW-11 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-12 Kavita, PW-13 Mani Lal and PW-15 Kantilal have already narrated the sequence of events in their testimony. 34. So far as the argument with respect to converting the conviction from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC on the ground that the incident happened on the spur of moment after a heated altercation between the deceased and the appellant and there was no motive or intention to cause fatal injuries is also bereft of merit as it has come in the testimony of PW-3 Sanjay Kumar that Lalit was sitting near the Anganwadi Centre and the appellant suddenly came and attacked Lalit by inflicting a number of injuries by sharp weapon on his body which ultimately proved fatal. The repetition of stab injuries with a sharp weapon like knife is sufficient to show that the appellant, in these circumstances, clearly intended to cause fatal injury to the deceased Lalit without there being any provocation on the part of the deceased Lalit. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Faquirey, Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2012 decided on 11.02.2019 has observed as under:- “7. According to Exception I to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if the offender causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. It would be relevant to refer to the First Proviso to Exception I which provides that the provocation should be one which is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. No overt act is alleged against the deceased by which it can be stated that the Respondent was provoked. From the proved facts of this case it appears that the provocation was voluntary on the part of the offender. Such provocation cannot come to the rescue of the Respondent to claim that he is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.” 36. From the proved facts of this case it appears that the provocation was voluntary on the part of the offender. Such provocation cannot come to the rescue of the Respondent to claim that he is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.” 36. We also note that the relationship between two families was not very cordial and, therefore, the enmity as mentioned in the statement of PW-3 Sanjay Kumar could have been the reason for the present incident. 37. In view of the detailed discussion made above, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offences alleged above. The instant Appeal thus has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned trial court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.