So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the witnesses being closely related and no independent witness has come to support the prosecution case, we would like to mention that it is the settled legal proposition that evidence of undisputedly interested witnesses or related witnesses cannot be discarded outright on that very sole ground. It is also established law that conviction can be based upon the evidence of witnesses related to the deceased without corroboration, if their testimonies are found to be trustworthy then there does not seem to be any valid or cogent reason for not acting upon their evidence. Because of their relationship, they cannot be considered to be inclined to spare the real culprits or falsely involve the accused persons. Applying the above legal proposition, we find in the present case that at the time of incident of murder no such person except these three prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 had reached the place of occurrence. The incident happened in the early hours of the morning. There seems to be no marked movement. Therefore, the question of withholding independent witnesses from the side of the prosecution does not arise. Perusal of the lower court records reveals that there is no doubt about the relationship between the prosecution witnesses. As per their statements all the three witnesses were closely related. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were nephews of P.W.3 and the victim, but as per the requirement of the law, their testimony had required to be carefully scrutinized in order to see whether they are truthful, reliable and trustworthy witnesses as their presence at the site is very natural. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the presence of the witnesses, we have carefully examined the statement given before the trial court. P.W.1 Jamuna stated in his statement that at the time of the incident he was present near the well and another witness Baldeo was also standing nearby from that place. Consequently, the ocular version of these witnesses inspires confidence. So the point raised by the learned counsel for the accused about their presence and non-production of the independent witnesses and production of only the related and interested witnesses does not create any shadow of doubt over the incident. Therefore, we hold that the argument raised by the accused counsel on this score has no substance. The next point of contradiction raised by the learned counsel for the defence is with regard to the number of injuries. He contended that perusal of the written report, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the inquest report number of injuries are shown to be five. Even in evidence five injuries were suggested to the victim. The post mortem report, however, mentions three injuries as ante mortem injuries. Under these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been challenged and asserted that they have not seen the incident. Medical and oral version are inconsistent and witnesses are not believable. Submit