JUDGMENT M.S. Karnik, J. - The appellant-accused Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale challenges the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, convicting him for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life and to pay fne of Rs.500/-, in default to sufer R.I. for two months vide Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The appellant-accused was charged for committing the murder of Gopal Mahadev Bhosale, on 21st March, 2014, at 10.30 p.m. The prosecution case in brief is as under. The appellant-accused Sunny @ Santosh is a resident of village Shivaji Nagar, Taluka : Khandala, District : Satara. The appellant - accused is a nephew of deceased Gopal. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is also a resident of Shivaji Nagar where the appellant-accused is residing. On the date of the incident, PW-6 Sunita Gopal Bhosale and her husband - deceased Gopal Bhosale went to the house of PW-5 Rajendra. PW-5 Rajendra went to answer nature's call. In the meantime, PW-6 Sunita and deceased Gopal were having conservation with Chayya - wife of PW-5 Rajendra. At around 10.30 p.m., the appellant-accused came in front of Rajendra's house and started abusing Chayya on account of a loan which PW-5 Rajendra obtained against the agricultural land. Chayya tried to pacify the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused attempted to assault Chayya. Gopal therefore intervened requesting the appellant-accused not to use abusive language and the issue could be resolved the next day in the morning. The appellant-accused proceeded away some distance from the house of PW-5-Rajendra. The appellant-acused suddenly started abusing Gopal in flthy language and called him out of the house in a threatening tone. Gopal went out of the house and followed the appellant-accused towards Northern side of tar road leading towards Khadkoba Temple in the village. After PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale returned back answering the nature's call, PW6 Sunita and Chayya informed PW-5 Rajendra whereupon even PW-5 - Rajendra rushed towards the spot. The appellant-accused mercilessly assaulted Gopal on his face and head by means of a bamboo stick causing serious bleeding injuries. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale, Aniket Bhosale (not examined by the prosecution), upon hearing the quarrel too headed towards the spot. PW-3 - Mangesh Bhosale, Aniket Bhosale and PW-5 - Rajendra Bhosale saw the appellant-accused assaulting the deceased by means of a bamboo stick. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale, Aniket Bhosale (not examined by the prosecution), upon hearing the quarrel too headed towards the spot. PW-3 - Mangesh Bhosale, Aniket Bhosale and PW-5 - Rajendra Bhosale saw the appellant-accused assaulting the deceased by means of a bamboo stick. Gopal was lying on the ground. On seeing PW-3 - Mangesh Bhosale, Aniket and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale, the appellant-accused ran away. Thereafter, Gopal was taken to the Rural Hospital at Khandala. The Doctor declared him dead on admission. 3. Pw-4 Sharad Bhosale lodged the First Information Report ('F.I.R.' for short). The F.I.R. was lodged on 22nd March, 2014, at about 1.35 a.m. PW-10 - Investigating Ofcer - Ashok Bapu Shelke conducted the investigation. 4. After preparing the inquest panchanama, the deadbody was sent for postmortem. The probable cause of death is mentioned as "due to head injury intracraniual haemorrhage". Following are the injuries on the person of deceased Gopal as testifed by PW-7 - Dr. Ramesh Ravindra Korde, who carried out the postmortem of the body. 1. Large C.L.W. fracture over chin on palpation. 2. Fracture of both temporor mandibular joints. 3. Fracture of bridge of nose. 4. Fracture of right temporal bone. 5. Fall lower teeth. Memorandum of postmortem is at Exhibit 21. 5. After inquest panchanama, the investigating ofcer PW-10 - Ashok Shelke prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit 8) and collected the blood mixed soil and plain soil. The accused was arrested. The blood stained clothes on the person of the deceased were seized by preparing panchanama (Exhibit 11). 6. The appellant-accused, when he was in police custody, expressed his willingness to show the place where the bamboo stick was concealed. The statement of the appellant - accused was recorded in the presence of the panch witnesses. The bamboo stick was seized at the instance of the appellantaccused. The panchanama to that efect was drawn at Exhibit 14. One end of the bamboo stick was having blood stains. The blood stained clothes of the appellant-accused and the bamboo stick were sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Analyser. The blood stained clothes of the deceased Gopal were seized under the panchanama drawn at Exhibit 15. The investigating ofcer recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation fled the chargesheet before the J.M.F.C., Khandala. The blood stained clothes of the appellant-accused and the bamboo stick were sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Analyser. The blood stained clothes of the deceased Gopal were seized under the panchanama drawn at Exhibit 15. The investigating ofcer recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation fled the chargesheet before the J.M.F.C., Khandala. The case was committed to the Sessions Court as the ofence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The defence is of total denial. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses during the trial. They are as under : (i) PW-1 - Vivek Mohan Bhosale at Exhibit 7 and PW-2 - Sachin Daulat Bhosale at Exhibit 10, are examined as panch witnesses of the spot panchanama. (ii) PW-3 Mangesh Dynaneshwar Bhosale is an eye witness and also a witness to the seizure panchanama at Exhibit 14. (iii) PW-4 - Sharad Balkrishna Bhosale at Exhibit 15 is the frst informant who lodged the F.I.R. (iv) PW-5 - Rajendra Bhosale at Exhibit 17 is also an eye witness. (v) Sunita Gopal Bhosale, wife of the deceased Gopal is examined as PW-6 at Exhibit 18. (vi) Dr. Ramesh Ravindra Korde, Medical Ofcer, who conduted postmortem is examined as PW-7 at Exhibit 20. (vii) The investigation was conducted by Ashok Bapu Shelke, who is examined as PW-10 at Exibit 32. The Sessions Court, upon trial, convicted the appellant-accused for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal by the original accused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant-accused as having regard to the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction is based on the testimony of eye witnesses PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. According to him, PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale are closely related to the deceased Gopal and therefore being interested witnesses, the Sessions Court committed an error in convicting the appellant-accused on the basis of the evidence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. The conviction is based on the testimony of eye witnesses PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. According to him, PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale are closely related to the deceased Gopal and therefore being interested witnesses, the Sessions Court committed an error in convicting the appellant-accused on the basis of the evidence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. He would further submit that even according to prosecution story the appellant-accused had gone to the house of deceased Gopal where he abused Chayya, wife of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and tried to assault her and therefore the possibility of false implication at the instance of PW-5 Rajendra cannot be ruled out. He would further submit that the Sessions Court has believed the testimony of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale though the same is full of contradictions and material omissions. He would further submit that PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale has made an improvement in his deposition which is a material omission amounting to contradiction when PW-3 says that "PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale came at spot, following them". He would further submit that the house of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale is nowhere near the spot of incident and therefore there was no occasion for PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale to be near the spot at 10.30 p.m. in the night. He would submit that the presence of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale at the spot is doubtful. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused invited our attention to the cross-examination of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. According to him, PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale admitted that deceased Gopal was helping him by providing money in difcult times. He would further submit that it would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale as not only PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale being a relative of deceased Gopal is an interested witness, but he also has a reason to falsely implicate the appellant-accused as the appellant-accused had an issue with PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale over the loan that PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale had obtained in respect of the agricultural feld. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would further urge that the trial Court has failed to consider the discrepancies in the evidence which falsifes the prosecution case. 9. Learned A.P.P. invited our attention to the evidence on record and submitted that the evidence of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is clinching, cogent and reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would further urge that the trial Court has failed to consider the discrepancies in the evidence which falsifes the prosecution case. 9. Learned A.P.P. invited our attention to the evidence on record and submitted that the evidence of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is clinching, cogent and reliable. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale are the eye witnesses, who have seen the incident. Further, the bamboo stick is recovered at the instance of the appellnataccused. The results of the analysis from the Forensic Laboratory reveal that the bamboo stick is sustained with human blood. Also T-shirt of the appellant-accused is sustained with human blood. According to him, the evidence of the eye witnesses PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 Sharad Bhosale and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale. He would submit that the medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution case. 10. We will now consider whether the prosecution has on the basis of the evidence on record proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant-accused who committed the murder of Gopal. 11. The incident took place on 21st March, 2014, at around 10.30 p.m. F.I.R. is lodged at the instance of PW-4 Sharad Bhosale at about 1.34 a.m. on 22nd March, 2014. The distance between the police station and the scene of ofence is 5 kms. 12. Pw-7 - Dr. Ramesh Ravindra Korde conducted the postmortem of the deceased Gopal between 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. on 22nd March, 2014. In his evidence, he pointed out that by mistake in the postmortem report the time of carrying out the postmortem is mentioned as 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. According to him, the death might have been taken place 8 to 10 hours before the postmortem. PW-7 - Dr. Ramesh Ravindra Korde found following injuries on the person of the deceased : 1. Large C.L.W. fracture over chin on palpation. 2. Fracture of both temporor mandibular joints. 3. Fracture of bridge of nose. 4. Fracture of right temporal bone. 5. Fall lower teeth. The probable cause of death is stated as "due to head injury intracraniual haemorrhage". Even after receipt of the viscera report, the fnal opinion as to the cause of the death is remained the same. PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Korde deposed that he did not fnd any injuries on the hands and legs. 5. Fall lower teeth. The probable cause of death is stated as "due to head injury intracraniual haemorrhage". Even after receipt of the viscera report, the fnal opinion as to the cause of the death is remained the same. PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Korde deposed that he did not fnd any injuries on the hands and legs. He further deposed that there was crush injury at the temporal area. He denied the suggestion that such type of injury can be possible by fall on hard surface. PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Korde also denied the suggestion that the injury on the chin is possible if a person collided against a wall while in a running condition. PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Korde categorically stated that fracture to temporal bone is not a fabricated injury. From the evidence of PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Korde it is seen that death of the deceased Gopal is homicidal in nature. His evidence further reveals that such type of injury can be caused by Article No.7 - bamboo stick. 13. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. The deceased Gopal is the cousin of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. PW5 Rajendra Bhosale was cultivating the land of Gopal on share in crop basis. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is a resident of the same village as deceased Gopal and his wife were residing. On 21st March, 2014, deceased Gopal and his wife PW-6 Sunita Bhosale had been to the house of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale went to answer nature's call. 14. Pw-5 Rajendra Bhosale is an eye witness. He deposed that on 21st March, 2014, after he returning back from answering nature's call, Chayya and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale told him about abusive language used by the appellant-accused against Chayya and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale over a loan that PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale had taken against agriculatural feld. The appellantaccused had also abused Gopal as he tried to intervene. The appellant-accused in a thretening tone asked Gopal to come out of the house whereupon Gopal followed the appellant-accused. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale says that he therefore went in a direction where the appellant-accused and Gopal headed towards Khadkoba temple. On reaching the spot he saw Gopal was lying on the ground. The appellant-accused was assaulting Gopal with a bamboo stick. The appellant-accused, thereafter, ran away from the spot. Gopal was taken to the Rurla Hospital. 15. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale says that he therefore went in a direction where the appellant-accused and Gopal headed towards Khadkoba temple. On reaching the spot he saw Gopal was lying on the ground. The appellant-accused was assaulting Gopal with a bamboo stick. The appellant-accused, thereafter, ran away from the spot. Gopal was taken to the Rurla Hospital. 15. Pw-6 Sunita Bhosale - wife of the deceased Gopal is not an eye witness to the actual incident. However, she deposed that along with her husband deceased Gopal she visited the house of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale on 21st March, 2014, at about 10.30 p.m. When PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale had gone to answer the nature's call, the appellant-accused came there. The appellant-accused started abusing Chayya wife of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. Gopal therefore tried to intervene requesting the appellant-accused not to use abusive language. Gopal further told the appellantaccused that his grievance could be discussed next day in the morning. As a result of this intervention, the appellant-accused started abusing Gopal and asked him to come out of the house. Thereafter, Gopal followed the appellant-accused. PW-6 Sunita Bhosale narrated this to PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale when he returned after answering the nature's call, PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale then went in the direction where the appellant-accused and Gopal had gone. 16. Pw-3 Mangesh Bhosale is an eye witness. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale in his evidence stated that on 21st March, 2014, at about 10.30 p.m., when he was watching India-Pakistan Cricket Match on T.V., he heard noise of quarrel behind his house. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale along with Aniket Bhosale went to the spot behind their house where they saw the appellant-accused beating Gopal by means of a bamboo stick. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale stated that PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale came to the spot. On seeing them, the appellant-accused ran away towards the temple. Thereafter, Gopal was taken to Rural Hospital, Khandala, in the vehicle of Sagar Pawar. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale's presence at the spot is highly doubtful. According to him, the statement made by PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale that PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale came at the spot following the appellant-accused and deceased Gopal is an improvement which is a material omission amounting to contradiction. However, we fnd that the improvement/omission which learned counsel is pointing out is not proved. 18. According to him, the statement made by PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale that PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale came at the spot following the appellant-accused and deceased Gopal is an improvement which is a material omission amounting to contradiction. However, we fnd that the improvement/omission which learned counsel is pointing out is not proved. 18. The evidence of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale, who are the eye witnesses, is consistent on all material aspects. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale upon hearing the noise of the quarrel behind his house, came to the spot of the incident where he saw the appellant-accused beating Gopal with a bamboo stick. PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale saw PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale following the appellant-accused and deceased Gopal. Merely because the statement of Aniket Bhosale, who was accompanying PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale, was not recorded by the police, is no reason to discard the testimony of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale which is otherwise reliable, trustworthy and consistent with the other evidence on record. It is nobody's case that PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale had any animosity towards the appellant-accused so as to falsely implicate him. 19. Merely because PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale was cultivating the agricultural feld belonging to the deceased Gopal on share in crop basis cannot be ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale if otherwise the same is trustworthy and reliable and fnds corroboration from other witnesses. Further, it is nobody's case that deceased Gopal was on inimical terms with the appellant-accused. On the contrary, the evidence on record goes to show that when the appellant-accused visited the house of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale over some issue with loan that PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale had taken, deceased Gopal only tried to intervene and placate the appellant-accused as the appellantaccused was hurling abuses at PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and his wife Chayya. The appellant-accused, thereafter, started abusing deceased Gopal. Deceased Gopal followed the appellant-accused and proceeded towards the temple. The evidence of PW-6 Sunita Bhosale is consistent with the evidence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale on being told by PW-6 Sunita Bhosale about the abuses hurled by the appellant-accused, went in the direction in which the appellant-accused and deceased Gopal proceeded. At the spot of incident PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale noticed the appellant-accused beating Gopal by means of a bamboo stick. 20. The deceased Gopal was remotely related to the appellantaccused as an uncle. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is the cousin brother of deceased Gopal. At the spot of incident PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale noticed the appellant-accused beating Gopal by means of a bamboo stick. 20. The deceased Gopal was remotely related to the appellantaccused as an uncle. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is the cousin brother of deceased Gopal. The incident has occured in a village where the appellant-accused, deceased Gopal and the witnesses PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale, PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale are residing. The evidence of the eye witnesses PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale and PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is consistent on all material aspects. The incident took place behind the house of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale. On hearing the noise of quarrel behind his house, PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale came out and witnessed the incident. It is nobody's case that PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale was on inimical terms with the appellant-accused or that there was some animosity between them so as to falsely implicate the appellantaccused. Even the testimony of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale is consistent with the testimony of other eye witness PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale. Though PW-6 Sunita Bhosale wife of the deceased is not an eye witness to the incident, she corroborates the version of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale that he followed the appellant-accused and the deceased Gopal as they had headed towards the temple. The version of the eye witnesses is consistent with the medical evidence on record. We fnd the testimony of the eye witnesses trustworthy and there is nothing material elicited in the cross examination to discredit their testimony. 21. The incident occurred at around 10.30 p.m., on 21st March, 2014. In an injured condition Gopal was takent to the Rural Hospital, Khandala where he was declared dead on admission. The inquest panchanama Exhibit 9 indicates that it was drawn between 1.50 a.m. to 2.45 a.m. on 22nd March, 2014. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for the postmortem and the postmortem was conducted between 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. There was no delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is lodged at 1.35 a.m. by the frst informant PW-4 Sharad Bhosale. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded without delay at the earliest on 22nd March, 2014 and within 24 hours of the incident. 22. There is a recovery of the bamboo stick at the instance of the appellant-accused. The bamboo stick was recovered from inside of the compound wall which is not within the sight of passerby's using the road. 22. There is a recovery of the bamboo stick at the instance of the appellant-accused. The bamboo stick was recovered from inside of the compound wall which is not within the sight of passerby's using the road. The bamboo stick was stained with blood and the Forensic Report reveals that the blood found on a bamboo stick is human blood. Even the clothes which the appellant-accused was wearing at the time of the incident are found stained with blood. Forensic Report indicates that the clothes of the appellant-accused are stained with human blood. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused urged that as PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale are interested witnesses, being related to the deceased Gopal, their evidence needs to be discarded. We do not fnd any merit in this submission. The evidence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale, who is an eye witness to the incident. Moreover, PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale, PW-6 Sunita Bhosale, the deceased Gopal and the appellant-accused are all distantly related to each other. The evidence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale cannot be brushed aside or disregarded only because of relationship or that they are interested witnesses. An interested witness is not necessarily a liar. If the testimony bears scrutiny, appeals to reason or common sense and accords with probabilities, then there is no reason why it should not be acted upon. PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale and PW-6 Sunita Bhosale are competent witnesses. The evidence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale as regards the incident in question is corroborated by PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale. They gave consistent account of the incident. The evidence of PW-6 Sunita Bhosale is consistent with that of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale as to the factum of the deceased Gopal following the appellant-accused after the appellant-accused called him out of the house. Further, the evidence on record leaves no manner of doubt that the presence of PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale at the scene of the ofence is natural and we fnd that there is nothing inherently improbable or unreliable about the presence either of PW-3 Mangesh Bhosale or PW-5 Rajendra Bhosale at the scene of the ofence. We are, therefore, satisfed that having regard to the evidence on record, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the appellant-accused who committed the crime beyond all reasonable doubts. 24. We are, therefore, satisfed that having regard to the evidence on record, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the appellant-accused who committed the crime beyond all reasonable doubts. 24. We have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. We are in respectful agreement with the reasons recorded by the trial Court and the conclusion reached having analysed the evidence in detail. We therefore do not fnd any substance in this Appeal. 25. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. 26. This judgment will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this judgment.