The trial court as well as the High Court ,had after critical examination of their statements, rightly concluded that they were the truthful witnesses and that all the appellant s in these appeals were present at the time of occurrence. Merely because the witnesses happened to be the relations of the deceased was not a ground to reject their testimony.

Under the circumstances of the case, the aforementioned witnesses appear to be the natural witnesses who were supposed to be at the house of P.W 5 when the occurrence took place.

The mere possibility of the occurrence having taken place in the manner suggested by the defence counsel was no ground for interference in the appeal s filed by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Time and again it has been held by the Supreme Court that no interference would be made the concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence even if Supreme Court was to Take a different view on the evidence.