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.