JUDGMENT : ARINDAM LODH, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.01.2021, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with ST (T-I) 38 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case was set on motion on the basis of the written complaint lodged by one Abdul Rahim (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) against the accused persons, namely: (i) Md. Helal Miah, (ii) Md. Khurshed Miah, (iii) Md. Murshed Miah, (iv) Sheikh Mujibur Khan, (v) Md. Rashid Miah, (vi) Md. Sajal Miah, (vii) Md. Iqbal Miah, (viii) Sheikh Rabi Khan, (ix) Md. Dulal Miah, (x) Mst. Jarina Begam, (xi) Mst. Hafija Khatoon, (xii) Md. Mirjan Miah and (xiii) Md. Rafique Miah. It is stated, inter alia that on 27.09.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. one Shahjahan Miah (herein-after referred to as ‘deceased’) nephew of the informant went to the shop of accused Khurshid Miah for purchasing certain articles. At that time, all the accused persons armed with lathi (stick), iron rod, etc. made a preplanned attack upon the deceased and assaulted him by making blows indiscriminately causing serious bleeding injuries on various parts of his body including head, and as a result, the deceased lost his sense at the spot. Deceased was, thereafter rescued by his brother Rabiul Alam accompanied with other local people and brought him to local hospital for treatment. Initially, the deceased was referred to ILS Hospital wherefrom he was taken to Apollo Hospital, Kolkata for better treatment. During treatment in the hospital at Kolkata the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 01.10.2013. 3. The said written complaint lodged on 27.09.2013 had led the Officer-In-Charge, West Agartala Police Station to register a specific case vide West Agartala P.S. Case No. 305/2013 under Sections 341/325/34 of IPC. Investigation was carried on initially by SI Adhar Debbarma (herein-after referred to as the 1st IO) and subsequently the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Milan Ch. Dutta (herein-after referred to as the 2nd IO). On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341/302/34 of IPC against all the above named accused persons. 4. Investigation was carried on initially by SI Adhar Debbarma (herein-after referred to as the 1st IO) and subsequently the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Milan Ch. Dutta (herein-after referred to as the 2nd IO). On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341/302/34 of IPC against all the above named accused persons. 4. During investigation, the 1st IO had visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence with separate index. He also examined the witnesses, namely Abdul Rahim, Gobinda Das and Hasina Begam. The 1st IO also had seized the alleged broom, a piece of stone (commonly called ‘Puta’ in local language which is used for mixing/making paste of various spices), a piece of wooden file, a piece of firewood measuring more than one cubit in length, a lathi (stick), one handle of spade measuring one and half cubits in length, one wooden lathi (stick) measuring one and half cubits in length and one iron rod measuring one and half cubits in length by way of preparing seizure list dated 28.09.2013. The 1st IO also arrested the accused Khurshid Miah and Jarina Begam on 02.10.2013. At this stage of investigation, the 1st IO having been transferred handed over the case docket to the Officer-In-Charge. The 2nd IO having started the investigation on 10.10.2013 had prepared separate hand-sketch map and index. He also examined and recorded the statements of some other witnesses. He also collected the medical documents from ILS Hospital and postmortem report and finally submitted charge-sheet. 5. On receipt of the charge-sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura took cognizance of the offence and ultimately the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura wherefrom the case was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge. At the commencement of trial charges were framed under Sections 341/302/34 of IPC against all the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges as stated above, the prosecution had examined as many as 18 (eighteen) witnesses including the informant as PW-1, the 1st IO as PW-16 and 2nd IO as PW-18 and introduced some material documents. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances as surfaced in the prosecution evidence. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances as surfaced in the prosecution evidence. The accused persons had pleaded to be innocent, but declined to adduce evidence on their behalf. Thereafter, having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the evidence and materials on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had returned a finding of guilt against 4 (four) accused persons namely, Md. Majid Miah @ Shekh Mjjibur Khan, Md. Rafiq Miah @ Luthu, Md. Sajal Miah and Mst. Jarina Begum and acquitted the remaining accused persons. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the above named 4 (four) convicts have preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 8. We have heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, Mrs. V. Poddar and Ms. S. Debbarma, learned counsels appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent. 9. In support of the appeal, Mr. Biswas at the very outset questioned the very genesis of the prosecution case since the FIR was lodged after 22 (twenty two) hours of the occurrence of the incident and that too without any explanation. According to Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel, the informant by consuming such unreasonable time falsely implicated the accused persons out of his own sweet will. Learned Sr. counsel contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have discarded the concocted versions of the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other in course of their depositions before the Court. Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel emphatically submitted that the prosecution had failed to produce any independent witnesses and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while convicting the accused-appellants had relied upon the depositions made by the related witnesses who were interested to implicate the appellants. Again, Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel tried to persuade this Court raising his serious doubt in regard to the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the scene of crime. There were shops where the alleged offence had committed, but prosecution could not produce a single witness from those shop owners. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that there were altogether 13 (thirteen) accused persons. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge had acquitted 9 (nine) accused persons. There were shops where the alleged offence had committed, but prosecution could not produce a single witness from those shop owners. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that there were altogether 13 (thirteen) accused persons. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge had acquitted 9 (nine) accused persons. The present appellants were convicted only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 10. Next, Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that one set of prosecution witnesses had condemned the evidence of other sets of witnesses and in such a situation, learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the convict-appellants in the line of the principles drawn by the Apex Court in the case of Harchand Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 344 . 11. Opposing the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. strongly defended the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. contended that the related witnesses could not in any way be said to be the interested witnesses. Learned Addl. P.P. had invited our attention to the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who according to him were independent witnesses. He further argued that due to faulty investigation the evidence of credible witnesses should not be discarded. 12. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Before we advert to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to peruse the evidence and materials on record. 12.1. PW-1, the informant of the case deposed as PW-1. The deceased Shahjahan Miah was his nephew. He deposed that while he was in a shop at about 7.00 p.m. on 27.09.2013 saw Khurshid Miah, Musjid Miah, Jarina Begam, Rashid Miah, Mirzan Miah, Rafik Miah, Halal Miah, Iqbal Miah, Majid Khan, Hafeja Khatun, Rabi Khan, Dulal Miah and another, beating Shahjahan with lathi, rod, broom, puta (a piece of stone used to crash and paste spices). By way of beating, the accused persons took Shahjahan to the house of Khurshid Miah, where he was beaten severely. He further deposed that due to such beating his diseased nephew had sustained grievous injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body and blood was oozing out from the nose and ear. By way of beating, the accused persons took Shahjahan to the house of Khurshid Miah, where he was beaten severely. He further deposed that due to such beating his diseased nephew had sustained grievous injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body and blood was oozing out from the nose and ear. After hearing the chaos, other members of the locality and his family members, namely his nephew Rabiul Alam, niece Hasina and wife of his elder brother accompanied by his elder brother came to the spot. Thereafter, they managed to take his nephew to the ILS Hospital and wherefrom he was taken to Apollo Hospitals, Kolkata, but on 01.10.2013 his nephew succumbed to his injuries. PW-1 further deposed that he informed the matter to the Officer-In-Charge, West Agartala Police Station by a written complaint which was written as per his dictation by Abdul Karim. He put his signature thereon after being read over the contents of the complaint by the said scribe. PW-1 identified his signature (Exbt.1/1). He also identified the accused persons in the dock. He further deposed that IO had seized the lathi, rod, broom, puta, preparing a seizure list where he put his signature. He identified his signature (Exbt.2/1). PW-1 also identified the seized articles (Exbt.MO.1 series). Being confronted with cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he could not tell the names of all sons and daughters of Khurshid Miah but he could recognize them. During his cross-examination he stated that he could not say what had been written in the FIR, but later on the content of the FIR was read over by the scribe. He further stated he narrated the names of 11 (eleven) persons in the FIR. He denied the suggestion that the names which were mentioned by him in the FIR were not correct. In cross-examination he stated that the distance between the house of his brothers and the house of Khurshid Miah was approximately 100/150 cubits. He denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that Khurshid Miah was attacked by his relative. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. 12.2. In cross-examination he stated that the distance between the house of his brothers and the house of Khurshid Miah was approximately 100/150 cubits. He denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that Khurshid Miah was attacked by his relative. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. 12.2. PW-2, Gobinda Das appearing as PW-2 deposed that on the fateful date and time when he came in front of the gate of Khurshid Miah, enroute to his home he saw Shahjahan was beaten by Majid Miah and Luthu and another one whose name he could not recollect. He obstructed them not to beat Shahjahan and he had fallen on the road. He started making hue and cry. Thereafter, he parked his cycle on the roadside and went to the house of Khurshid Miah and saw Shahjahan was laid down on the courtyard and blood was coming out from various parts of his body. Thereafter, he was first taken to GBP Hospital wherefrom he was shifted to ILS Hospital, Agartala and thereafter he was referred to Kolkata for his better treatment. PW-2 further deposed that he could recognize two accused persons as mentioned above. He further deposed that the names of other accused persons who were present before the court were not known to him, but they were all present at the place of occurrence. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his statement was recorded 2/3 days after the incident at about 09.00 a.m. in the morning on the road when other persons of the locality were also present. He denied the suggestion that Majid Miah and Luthu did not beat Shahjahan. To a question put forth by the defence PW-2 answered that at the time of incident the shop of Khurshid Miah was opened. 12.3. PW-3, Hasina Begam appearing as PW-3 deposed that at the relevant time she heard a chaos and she was told by one boy that Shahjahan was being beaten by some persons. She went to the spot at the house of Lutha and saw her brother was beaten by some persons, but she could not tell the names of those persons. However, PW-3 deposed that the persons in the dock of the court were all present at the time of incident. She further deposed that her brother was beaten by lathi, rod, broom and puta (piece of stone). However, PW-3 deposed that the persons in the dock of the court were all present at the time of incident. She further deposed that her brother was beaten by lathi, rod, broom and puta (piece of stone). She further deposed that she also was beaten by them. PW-3 deposed that the mother and brother of Shahjahan and one of her nephew came to the spot wherefrom he was taken to the hospital. During her cross-examination, the defence had drawn her attention to her statement she made before the I.O. during her examination under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. where the names of accused Lutha and Sajal were not mentioned. 12.4. PW-4, Suman Miah deposed that at the time of incident he was in the shop of Johora Begam for buying some food articles. PW-4 deposed that he saw Rabiul and Majibur were beating Shahjahan with wooden pile in front of the shop of Khurshid Miah. He further deposed that seeing the incident he went to the house of Shahjahan Miah and informed them regarding the incident. Thereafter, he noticed that Shahjahan Miah was taken to hospital. During his cross-examination he stated that he was examined by Darogababu in the house of the deceased after 2/3 days of the incident. The defence had drawn his attention to his statement he made in chief-examination regarding the involvement of Rabiul and Majbul, who were beating Shahjahan with wooden pile, was found to be absent in his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that he did not see the incident of beating Shahjahan Miah by the accused persons Rabiul and Majibul in front of the shop of Khurshid Miah. He further stated that the shop of Khurshid Miah was on the main road. 12.5. PW-5, Mayarani Bibi, mother of the deceased Shahjahan Miah deposed that her son was a supplier of Mid-Day meal to the JB Schools. There was a quarrel on 26.09.2013 between his son and Hellal Miah regarding awarding of 3 kg. of rice to Hellal Miah for cleaning stool in the school. Hellal Miah had demanded 7 kg. of rice. At that time, she advised his son Shahjahan not to quarrel with Hellal Miah because he and his family had no good relation. There was a quarrel on 26.09.2013 between his son and Hellal Miah regarding awarding of 3 kg. of rice to Hellal Miah for cleaning stool in the school. Hellal Miah had demanded 7 kg. of rice. At that time, she advised his son Shahjahan not to quarrel with Hellal Miah because he and his family had no good relation. PW-5 deposed that on 27.09.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. her son Shahjahan and Rabiul Alam went to the house of their maternal aunt. At the time of returning home, Shahjahan directed his younger brother to go home and he would come later and he went to the shop of Khurshid Miah. She further deposed that it was around 7.30 p.m. her son was beaten by Rabi Khan, Majibur Khan and Murshid Miah with wooden pile. At that time Suman Miah (PW-4) informed her about the incident and thereafter she along with her husband Abdul Karim son Rabiul Alam and her grandson had rushed to the spot where she had seen that her son was taken to the house of Khurshid Miah by the accused persons. She had seen that her son was beaten in the house of Khurshid Miah by Rafik Miah @ Lutha and Sajal Miah. Her son demanded water and Sokhina Begam provided water to her son. PW-5 deposed that Jarina Begam assaulted Shahjahan with a piece of stone (puta) on his head. Her son was also beaten by the accused persons, namely Rabi Khan, Mujibur Khan, Iqbal Khan, Murshid Miah, Sajal Miah, Kajal Miah, Rafik Miah @ Lutha, Mirjan Miah, Rashid Miah, Hellal Miah, Jarina Begam, Hafeja Begam, Khurshid Miah. She further deposed that her younger son Rabiul Alam was taken to the cow shed and they also assaulted on his head. Thereafter, she started shouting and she along with her husband and some other persons rescued her younger son Rabiul Alam from the cow shed, and at the same time they along with other people had taken away Shahjahan in senseless condition from the house of Khurshid Miah to GBP hospital and thereafter to ILS hospital and there from he was referred to Kolkata, Apollo hospital where he died on 01.10.2013. During her cross-examination, she denied all the suggestions put forth by the defence and no material discrepancies/contradictions could be elicited from her cross-examination. 12.6. PW-6, Abdul Karim is the father of the deceased. During her cross-examination, she denied all the suggestions put forth by the defence and no material discrepancies/contradictions could be elicited from her cross-examination. 12.6. PW-6, Abdul Karim is the father of the deceased. He deposed that Shahjahan was an MBA graduate. The incident had occurred on 27.09.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. at Joypur in front of the house of Khurshid Miah. He deposed that his son went near the place of occurrence for buying tiffin. He further deposed that Suman Miah informed him that his son Shahjahan was beaten by Sajal Miah and Lutha and on receiving the said information he along with his family members including his wife, younger son, and niece went to the spot. On reaching the spot he saw that his son was beaten by Sajal Miah, Lutha, Iqbal, Mujibur Khan, Rabi Khan, Rashid Miah, Mirjan Miah, Kajal Miah, Hellal Miah, Jarina Khatun and Hafeja Khatun. He further deposed that his younger son was taken to the cow shed by 2/3 persons. They tried to rescue their sons from those persons. He further deposed that his elder son Shahjhan was in senseless condition due to the injury. They had taken him to ILS hospital and thereafter he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Kolkata where his son succumbed to his injury. Nothing material variations could be elicited from his cross-examination. 12.7. PW-7 Rabiul Alam, the brother of the deceased Shahjahan deposed that on 27.09.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with his brother went to their maternal aunt’s house at border Golchakkar, Ramnagar. While they were returning, his elder brother told him to buy cigarette and directed him to go to home. PW-7 deposed that while he was going to his house he noticed that at the shop of Murshid Miah there were Sheikh Rabi Khan, Mujibur Khan @ Mujid Miah, Lutha Miah @ Rafiq Miah, Mirjan Miah, Jarina Khatun, Hellal Miah, Rashid Miah and Iqbal Miah, standing in front of the shop. After returning to home when he was putting off his shoes at that very time Suman Miah (PW-4) came to his house and told him and other family members that his brother Shahjahan Miah was beaten by Rabi Khan and Shekh Mujibur. After getting that information he started to rush towards the spot along with his mother, father, nephew Kamrul, cousin sister Hasina. After getting that information he started to rush towards the spot along with his mother, father, nephew Kamrul, cousin sister Hasina. When they reached in the house of Khurshid Miah they saw the accused persons were beating his elder brother. He further deposed that he had seen Rafiq Miah @ Lutha assaulted his elder brother with a wooden pile on his head twice. At the same time Sajal Miah came with a wooden pile and hit on the head of his brother twice. Other persons were beating by legs and feasts on the person of his brother. He further deposed that because of the assault his brother had fallen on the ground and at that very moment Jarina Khatun took one piece of stone (puta) with which she hit on the head of his brother and because of the injury his brother became senseless. He tried to rescue his brother but Rabi Khan, Mojid Miah, Rashid Miah, Hafeja Khatun, Dulal Miah @ Kajal Miah caught him tight and took him in front of the cattle house. Thereafter his father, mother, Maman Miah, Sakhina Khatun rescued him and they made him free from those accused persons. Thereafter, he came at the spot where his brother was lying in senseless condition. They took his brother with the help of other persons to the hospital by arranging a four-wheeler. His brother ultimately died in Kolkata hospital. Only some suggestions were given to PW-7 during his cross-examination which were denied by him and no substantial material could be elicited by the defence. 12.8. PW-8, Kamrul Nahar deposed as the wife of the deceased. She deposed that on 27.09.2013 at about 7.00-7.30 p.m. she was at the house when Suman Miah came to the house and informed them that her husband was being beaten by some persons in front of the house of Khurshid Miah and on getting such information her brother-in-law Rabiul Alam, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, Hasina had rushed towards the place of occurrence. Later on, she heard through her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law that her husband was assaulted by Jarina Begam, Sajal Miah, Kajal Miah, Murshid Miah, Rabi Khan, Mujibur Khan, Iqbal Khan, Mirjan Miah, Rashid Miah, Rafiq Miah and Hellal Miah. She further deposed that she came to know that her husband was beaten by lathi, iron rod, broom, wooden pile and piece of stone (puta). She further deposed that she came to know that her husband was beaten by lathi, iron rod, broom, wooden pile and piece of stone (puta). During her cross-examination, her attention being drawn to her previous statement, it is found that she did not mention the words ‘wooden pile’ during that statement. No more substantial materials were elicited from her further cross-examination. 12.9. PW-9, Kamrul Hossain deposed that on the fateful evening Suman Miah came to their house and informed them that some persons namely Rabi Khan and Mujibur Miah were beating his maternal uncles, Rabiul Alam and Shahjahan Miah. He further deposed that on receiving that information he along with his maternal grandfather, grandmother, his maternal uncle and aunty had rushed towards the spot. Deposing further he stated that at the spot he saw that in the house of Khurshid Miah, the accused persons, namely Sajal, Kajal, Rabi Khan, Iqbal Miah, Khurshid Miah, Jarina Begam, Lutha, Mujibur Khan and wife of Khurshid Miah, were beating his uncle, i.e. deceased Shahjahan Miah with rod, wooden pile, peace of stone (puta). The accused persons also had threatened him and pushed him out of the house of Khurshid Miah. During his cross-examination, his attention being drawn to his previous statement, it is found that the statements that he made before the police that he was threatened and being pushed out and that Shahjahan Miah had fallen down on the ground were not found. No material deviations are found from the statements he made during his chief-examination. 12.10. PW-10, Abdul Jalil deposed that he was not present at the place of occurrence, but, later on, he heard that Rabi Khan and Mujibur had beaten Shahjahan Miah and out of those injuries Shahjahan Miah had died in Kolkata. In front of him 7 (seven) documents were seized to which he put his signatures. He identified his signatures on the seizure list dated 03.12.2013 which are exhibited as Exbt.4/1. PW-10 also identified his signatures on the seized documents which are marked as Exbt.MO.2/1 series. 12.11. PW-11, Abdul Karim deposed that the deceased Shahjahan Miah was his nephew and he heard the incident over telephone on 27.09.2013 in the night. 12.12. PW-12, Smt. Kunjarani Singha deposed that she was the Headmistress of Joypur J.B. School where she had served from 2008 to 2015. 12.11. PW-11, Abdul Karim deposed that the deceased Shahjahan Miah was his nephew and he heard the incident over telephone on 27.09.2013 in the night. 12.12. PW-12, Smt. Kunjarani Singha deposed that she was the Headmistress of Joypur J.B. School where she had served from 2008 to 2015. She deposed that in the month of September, 2013 when she reached to the school, she noticed stool just before the door of the kitchen of the school. Near the school compound there was a house of Hellal Miah who used to clean the stool on her direction earlier. On that day also on her direction he cleared the stool on her direction and for that service he was awarded some quantity of rice. PW-12 further deposed that she directed Shahjahan Miah (the deceased) to give some rice to Hellal Miah for his cleaning service. Accordingly, on her direction Shahjahan Miah handed over rice to Hellal Miah. On reaching to school on 28.09.2013 she heard the incident of quarrel of Shahjahan Miah. Later on, she came to know that injured Shahjahan was shifted to hospital and he died at Kolkata. 12.13. PW-13, Sujit Sarkar is the witness to some documents (Exbt.MO.2/2). 12.14. PW-14, Rajib Basu was posted as SI of Police at Phoolbagan P.S. on 02.10.2013. He received the death certificate from Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata. He went to the Apollo Hospital and saw the dead body and prepared the inquest report at the Apollo Hospital in Kolkata. 12.15. PW-15, Dr. Prabir Kumar Deb deposed on behalf of Department of Forensic Medicine, North Bengal Medical College, who conducted the postmortem report while he was on duty at NRS Medical College, Kolkata on 02.10.2013. He deposed that in his opinion the cause of death was due to the effect of anti-mortem head injury homicidal in nature. PW-15 identified the post-mortem report prepared by him and his signature on the report dated 02.10.2013 which is marked as Exbt.5 as a whole. 12.16. PW-16, Adhar Debbarma deposed that on 28.09.2013 he was posted at West Agartala PS as SI and on that day he received the case docket from O/C West Agartala PS for conducting the investigation of case No. 305/13. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map on 28.09.2013, recorded the statements of Abdul Rahim, Gobinda Das and Hasina Begam. He further examined the informant Abdul Rahim. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map on 28.09.2013, recorded the statements of Abdul Rahim, Gobinda Das and Hasina Begam. He further examined the informant Abdul Rahim. He had prepared the seizure list dated 28.09.2013 which was being identified was marked as Exbt.2. The witness also identified the seized materials which are marked as Exbt.MO.1 series. 12.17. PW-17, Dr. Debasattya Bhattacharjee deposed that on 27.09.2013 though he was not a Neurosurgeon, but, on humanitarian ground, he was requested to examine the patient and as per request he examined the patient and advised CT scan, etc. 12.18. PW-18, Milan Datta being posted at West Agartala Police Station on 28.09.2013 had endorsed the case to SI Adhar Debbarma for investigation. PW-18 identified his signature on the FIR (Exbt.7). PW-18 personally took up the investigation of the case on 10.10.2013. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared the hand-sketch map with index [Exbt.6 and 6 (i)]. He also re-examined some of the material witnesses. Thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 13. We have carefully scrutinized the evidences and material documents brought on record. Having considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that due to delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecution case should fail, we are of the opinion that this submission has no merit. It is explained in the FIR itself that all the near relatives of the deceased Shahjahan were busy with his treatment. Undisputedly, the deceased was brutally beaten and severely injured. Naturally, in such a situation, the primary duty of the relatives would be to ensure his proper treatment to save his life. We have noticed that the incident was occurred at about 19:30 hours on 27.09.2013 and the complaint was lodged at 17:35 hours on 28.09.2013. It has come to our notice that the relatives of the deceased had taken him first to the GBP Hospital, Agartala and then to the ILS Hospital, Agartala and considering his injuries being critical and gradual deterioration of his condition, he had to be shifted to Apollo Hospital in Kolkata. In the complaint it is clearly stated that since the relatives, particularly the father of the victim were all along busy with the treatment related work, they could not inform the incident to the police immediately after the incident. In the complaint it is clearly stated that since the relatives, particularly the father of the victim were all along busy with the treatment related work, they could not inform the incident to the police immediately after the incident. Accordingly, the submission of the learned senior counsel in this regard stands repelled. 14. Having gone through the evidences on record, it is surfaced that PW-4, Suman Miah appears to be one of the vital witnesses to the chain of entire circumstances. He was the person who first witnessed that Rabi and Mujibur were beating deceased, Shahjahan with wooden pile in front of the shop of Khurshid Miah, and immediately he informed the matter to the family members of the deceased including the parents of Shahjahan. All the related witnesses of deceased Shahjahan have spoken in the same tune that it was on the basis of information passed on to them by Suman Miah they had rushed to the place of occurrence, i.e. at the house of Khurshid Miah where they had seen the appellants assaulting the deceased Shahjahan at the courtyard of Khurshid Miah. 15. Next relevant witness, according to us, is PW-7 Rabiul Alam, the younger brother of deceased Shahjahan. From his evidence it comes to fore that on the fateful evening, i.e. on 27.09.2013 at about 7.00-7.30 p.m. he along with his brother was returning to their house from the house of their maternal aunt at Border Golchakkar. While they were returning, deceased Shahjahan told him that he would buy cigarette and directed him to go home and while he was going to his house he observed the accused persons were standing in front of the shop of Khurshid Miah. After reaching at home when he was putting off his shoes, Suman Miah (PW-4) came to their house and informed that Shahjahan was being beaten by Rabi Khan and Sheikh Mujibur. Thereafter, they had rushed to the spot and saw the accused persons were beating Shahjahan. He has categorically stated that he saw Rafiq Miah alias Lutha assaulting Shahjahan with a wooden pile on his head twice, while at the same time Sajal Miah came with a wooden pile and also hit on the head of his brother twice. Other accused-persons were beating by legs and feasts on the person of his brother. He has categorically stated that he saw Rafiq Miah alias Lutha assaulting Shahjahan with a wooden pile on his head twice, while at the same time Sajal Miah came with a wooden pile and also hit on the head of his brother twice. Other accused-persons were beating by legs and feasts on the person of his brother. He further deposed that when Shahjahan had fallen down on the ground, at that very moment Jarina Khatun hit on the head of his brother (Shahjahan) with one piece of stone (puta) when Shahjahan became senseless. He tried to rescue his brother but he was taken to a cattle house. Somehow his parents and other persons had rescued him. Thereafter, Shahjaan was rescued and taken to the hospital. 16. PW-1 (uncle of the deceased), PW-3 (sister of the deceased), PW-5 (mother of the deceased), PW-6 (father of the deceased), PW-7 (brother of the deceased), PW-8 (wife of the deceased), PW-9 (son of the sister of the deceased), are all related witnesses of deceased Shahjahan and except PW-8 (wife of the deceased) all had rushed to the house of Khurshid after being informed by Suman Miah (PW-4) that Shahjahan was being beaten by the accused persons including the appellants herein. They had seen the accused-appellants assaulting the deceased with wooden piles, lathi (sticks), iron rods, etc. PW-7, Rabiul Alam has specifically stated that he saw that Rafiq Miah alias Lutha assaulting Shahjajan with a wooden pile on his head twice. At the same time, Sajal Miah came with a wooden pile and he also hit on the head of his brother twice. Ultimately, his brother had fallen down on the ground and at that very moment Jarina Khatun @ Mst. Jarina Begam, the appellant No. 4 had hit on the head of his brother with a piece of stone (puta) when his brother became senseless. PW-8, the wife of the victim during her chief examination has corroborated the versions of the other witnesses in regard to the fact that after being informed by Suman Miah her parents-in-law along with other relatives had rushed to the place of occurrence to save her husband. She has deposed that she came to know from her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, that the appellants along with others had assaulted her husband. 17. The learned Addl. She has deposed that she came to know from her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, that the appellants along with others had assaulted her husband. 17. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge having considered the evidences and materials on record had acquitted 9 (nine) accused persons out of 13 (thirteen) against whom charge-sheet was filed charges were farmed. We find no fault in the findings arrived at by learned Addl. Sessions Judge while convicting and sentencing the appellants herein. 18. We have given due importance to the submission of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the Court should refrain from placing reliance upon the evidences let in by the related witnesses of the deceased. According to learned senior counsel, the related witnesses are naturally the interested witnesses. We find no legal support behind the submission of the learned senior counsel. A related witness does not necessarily be an interested witness, rather, according to us, the parents, wife, brothers and sisters are the most natural witnesses. In this context, we may profitably rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 752 where a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that: “7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW-1 on two grounds: (1) she was a “highly interested” witness because she “is the wife of the deceased” and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an “interested” witness. She is related to the deceased. “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. She is related to the deceased. “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 eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested.” In the instant case PW-1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents.” 19. True it is, that a court should scrutinize and appreciate the evidence of a related and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested and unrelated witness. 20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, in the case in hand also, we have given our bird’s eye view to the evidence of the related witnesses, i.e. PW-1 (uncle of the deceased), PW-3 (sister of the deceased), PW-5 (mother of the deceased), PW-6 (father of the deceased), PW-7 (brother of the deceased), PW-8 (wife of the deceased), PW-9 (son of the sister of the deceased). Noticeably, PW-2 Gobinda Das and PW-4 Suman Miah are not in any way related to either the accused persons or deceased Shahjahan. As such, they are disinterested and unrelated witnesses to the instant prosecution case. Now the fact that PW-4 after seeing Shahjahan being assaulted by the accused persons had rushed to the house of deceased Shahjahan and informed his relatives (i.e. the related witnesses) has been proved beyond reasonable doubt since this part of evidence of PW-4 remains unshaken. Further, this evidence of PW-4 makes the fact that the above related witnesses had rushed to the scene of crime, and their presence therein witnessing the incident of assault, more natural and possible. No parents, wife, brothers and sisters can desist themselves but to rush to the scene of offence to save the life of their loved ones. The defence has not been able to make out a case that there was any enmity between the family of Shahjahan and that of the appellants or they have any interest to falsely implicate the appellants with the crime and to see them punished. 21. The defence has not been able to make out a case that there was any enmity between the family of Shahjahan and that of the appellants or they have any interest to falsely implicate the appellants with the crime and to see them punished. 21. In normal course of human behaviour or instinct, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. While dealing with the evidentiary value of the related witnesses, Vivian Bose, J. speaking on behalf of a Three-Judge Bench in the case of Dalip Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , had observed thus: “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 relation 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. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.” Again, the learned Judge had observed that a Judge in a particular case can, for special reasons to that case and the witness, say that he is not prepared to believe him unless corroborated because of his general unreliability or for other reasons but unless there are such special facts he cannot do so on a supposedly general rule of prudence enjoined by law, as the case of accomplices. (Emphasis supplied) 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganapathi and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 , had held that: “15. (Emphasis supplied) 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganapathi and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 , had held that: “15. Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made [See: Maranadu vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 529 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 338].” 23. Following the afore-discussed principles, we can easily hold that merely a witness is closely related to a victim of crime does not ipso facto makes him an interested witness. Added to it, we find that the statements of the aforesaid related witnesses of the deceased made before the investigating officers and their depositions before the court are all along consistent. There is no material improvement/ exaggeration, least to say, the contradictions. The evidences of the aforesaid related witnesses appear to us as spontaneous, credible and trustworthy. The above factors have made the related witnesses more reliable inspiring the confidence of this Court. 24. PW-2, Gobinda Das also is a resident of the same locality. He is not related to the deceased Shahjahan or any of his family members. We have no reason to disbelieve his statements, which he has made in his chief examination that on the fateful evening while he was returning home he saw the deceased, Shahjahan was being beaten by Majid Miah, the appellant No. 1 and Lutha @ Md. Rafiq Miah, the appellant No. 2 along with another one whose name he could not recollect. He tried to save Shahjahan but he had fallen on the road and started making hue and cry. He has further stated that he parked his cycle on the roadside and went to the house of Khurshid Miah where he had seen Shahjajan lying down on the courtyard with bleeding injuries. He tried to save Shahjahan but he had fallen on the road and started making hue and cry. He has further stated that he parked his cycle on the roadside and went to the house of Khurshid Miah where he had seen Shahjajan lying down on the courtyard with bleeding injuries. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that Majid Miah and Lutha did not beat the injured Shahjahan. 25. In addition, as emanated from the records, the postmortem report and the evidence of doctors also corroborate the injuries sustained by the deceased. 26. In the light of above analysis of the evidences and materials on record, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused persons are hereby upheld and affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.