R.N. PRASAD & A.K. SINHA, JJ. :- The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.4.1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S.T. No. 172/82 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case is that informant Radha Kumar gave fardbeyan on 25.4.1981 at 4 p.m. that he and his brother Manohar Kumar, the deceased, were at their residence. Chandrika Kumar, one of the appellant, came and started abusing Manohar Kumar, his deceased, were at their residence. Chandrika Kumar, one of the appellant, came and started abusing Manohar Kumar, his brother. His brother Manohar protested on which he threatened to kill. Soon thereafter Chandrika Kumar with Bhala, Uma Kumar with country made pistol, Dinesh Kumar with Samath (Pestle), Bindeshwari with 'Khanti' and the rest four with lathis came and attacked Manohar Kumar. His brother Manohar Kumar tried to save himself and proceeded towards east. When he proceeded about 20 to 25 cubits, appellant Dinesh Kumar gave a 'samath' blow due to which he fell down. Thereafter, Chardrika Kumar gave Bhala blow, Bindeshwari Kumar gave Khanti blow and rest of the accused persons assaulted with lathi. Accused Uma was threatening that if they moved they would be killed. His brother was raising hulla on which Ramshrestha Kumar, Beyas Kumar, Jhagru Kumar and Balo Kumar came and saw the occurrence. The accused persons ran away towards west. They took him to the Railway hospital but on way he died. The motive of the occurrence was that the deceased Manohar Kumar had taken Rs. 1500/- from Chandrika Kumar. He was demanding money but the deceased refused to return the amount saying that first withdraw the case lodged by him and then the aforesaid amount shall be returned.

3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan a formal First Information Report was drawn. Investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against 8 persons. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

4. Trial was taken up. During trial accused Uma was killed and as such only seven persons were put on trial. The trial Court acquitted one of the accused, namely Binod Kumar @ Bindeshwari and convicted six accused persons i.e. appellants for the offence as indicated above. However, during pendency of the appeal, appellant Chandrika Kumar died and as such appeal against him abated.

5. The defence of the appellants was that the deceased had enmity with several persons. He was murdered by some other persons in the morning of 25.4.1981. The appellants were innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case out of enmity.

6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witnesses, out of whom P.Ws., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 have claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.7 is Doctor who held post-mortem over the dead-body. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer.

7. P.Ws. 1 & 3 are brothers, P.W.5 is mother of the deceased. P.W.6 is brother of the deceased and is informant. P.W.2 is said to be inimical to the appellants. The evidence of P.W.4 has been disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that he was examined by the police after 3-4 days of the occurrence and he was engaged in railway department and the Muster roll register indicates that he was present there on the day of occurrence and was doing work at different place. However, learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the witnesses are either relation of the deceased or inimical to the appellants and as such their evidence should not be accepted. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that law does not require that evidence of such witnesses should be discarded outright rather it is well established rule of law that evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with care and caution. Keeping in mind the aforesaid well established rule of law we