Judgment (Oral) Sanjeev Kumar, J.-This is an application by the petitioner seeking condonation of 885 days’ delay in filing appeal against the order and judgment dated 30.112012 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch (“appellate court”) in file No.01/appeal titled Mohd. Mehboob and others v. State through Police Station, Mandhar. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this belated appeal by the petitioner are that, on 20.04.2000, the complainant Mohd. Razaq appeared at Police Station, Mendhar in an injured condition and produced an application against sixteen persons including the petitioner herein with the allegation that on account of an old enmity between the complainant and the accused over a piece of land all the accused with a common criminal intention armed with axes, rambi and lathies etc attacked the complainant and his family. On the basis of the allegations contained in the application, FIR No.46/2000 under Sections 307/452/147/148/109 RPC was registered and after filing injured form, the injured persons were referred to medical officer, SDH, Mendhar for treatment. Investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. Ramesh Chander 60/IHC, who, during the course of investigation, visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and completed other requisite legal formalities. The medical report in respect of the injured person was received from SDH, Mendhar and as per the medical opinion, Section 324 RPC was also added in the case. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and found the offences alleged proved against the accused persons including the petitioner herein. The challan was presented before the competent Court of law. The Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mendhar (“the trial court”) framed the charges and called upon the prosecution to lead its evidence. The trial court found the petitioner herein and nine others guilty of commission of offences under Sections 452/324/147/148/109 RPC and, accordingly, convicted them. On appeal by the accused persons including the petitioner herein, the appellate court vide judgment dated 30.11.2012, impugned herein, upheld the conviction recorded by the trial court but granted benefit of the provisions of Section 562 Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, let off the petitioner and other accused on probation of good conduct subject to their entering into a bond to appear to receive sentence when called upon during the next one year and in the meantime keep peace and maintain good behaviour. It is this order of the appellate court, which is sought to be assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal, which he has filed after a huge delay of 885 days. 3. The only ground urged for seeking condonation of delay is that since the petitioner was exempted from personal appearance by the appellate court and, therefore, he was not present on the date the judgment impugned was pronounced. It is submitted that the petitioner was informed about the judgment much later and, therefore, there was a delay of 885 days. 4. Notice in the matter was issued on 05.08.2015 and on being put on notice, respondents entered their appearance through Mr. P.S.Chandel, the then Deputy Advocate General. Status report on behalf of the respondents too has been filed. However, petitioner who had appeared on 05.08.2015 in person has not made any effort to pursue this matter or get it listed for consideration. Today also, when the case was called out, nobody turned up to represent the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the judgment impugned and given thoughtful consideration to the material on record but do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court, which has been upheld by the learned appellate court, is well reasoned. The appellate court has thoroughly discussed the evidence on record yet again and has come to the conclusion that had been arrived at by the trial court. However, taking into consideration the relevant factors, which the appellate court has discussed in detail in the impugned judgment, the benefit of probation was granted to the accused. 6. The judgment impugned has been assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the trial court as well as the appellate court committed grave error in relying upon the testimony of the interested witnesses and, therefore, the judgment is bad in law. I do not think that testimony of the interested witnesses is required to be thrown out completely. The judgment impugned has been assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the trial court as well as the appellate court committed grave error in relying upon the testimony of the interested witnesses and, therefore, the judgment is bad in law. I do not think that testimony of the interested witnesses is required to be thrown out completely. The legal position in this regard is well settled that the testimony of witnesses, who may be related to the complainant, cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the witnesses deposing against the accused are interested witnesses but only caution is that testimony is required to be appreciated carefully and with circumspection and if the same is corroborated by other evidence including the circumstantial evidence, there is nothing wrong in placing reliance upon such testimony. 7. That apart, even this criminal appeal, which is in the form of second appeal may not be maintainable against the judgment of the appellate court. However, the petitioner has not turned up to demonstrate as to how criminal second appeal would be maintainable against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch. 8. For all these reasons, I find no merit in this application. There is no justification to condone the huge delay of 885 days in the absence of any cogent explanation. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal shall also stand dismissed.