ORDER : 1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 19.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2001 c/w Criminal Appeal No.1117/2000 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and the State, upheld conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC, reduced the sentence from two years to one year and convicted appellant No.1 under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The counsel on behalf of the appellants has argued that no independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, rather the conviction is solely based on the statements rendered by the kith and kin of the complainant. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the respondent-State, supported the view taken by the High Court. 3. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being related to the victim, if otherwise the same is found to be credible. It ought to be noted that in the present case the evidence of PW-2 (injured-victim) stands fully corroborated by testimonies of PW-1 and 13 (father and brother of the injured victim respectively). The counsel on behalf of the appellants could not show us any inconsistency in their cross-examination. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses are also supported by independent witness PW-7 (neighbor of PW-1) who has corroborated the instances of cruelty. Moreover, the FIR registered at the instance of PW-1 corroborates the version of the prosecution and the same was registered without any delay. 4. Having given due consideration to the submissions rendered by counsel from both sides and the totality of the circumstances, we cannot find fault with the view taken by the High Court in convicting the accused persons whose guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence or law in the impugned judgment. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The present appeals are, therefore, dismissed.