JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for five years was imposed. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court.

3. As noted above, the learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that originally there were six accused persons. A3 was acquitted by the trial court whereas appellant Tukaram was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 (II). However the sentence of seven years as was imposed by the trial court was reduced to five years.

5. It was further submitted that evidence of PWs 1,2 & 5 should not have been accepted as they were related to the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that there is no legal bar in accepting the evidence of a relative. A relative would normally not protect person who is guilty and would s