6) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that PWs 1, 2 & 4 are natural witnesses, but not interested witnesses as the offence took place at the house of PW.4 and being the inmates of the house, they have witnessed the ghastly act of the accused. He strenuously argued that there may be property disputes between the families of the accused and deceased, but there is no bitter enmity between them so as to implicate the accused, who is none other than the cousin brother of the deceased. Referring to the incident that occurred on the previous day of the death of the deceased, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that when the accused was altercating with his own parents on some issue and assaulting them, unable to digest it, the deceased intervened and questioned the accused of his highhanded act. He would argue that the said incident would reveal that though property disputes were pending between both the families, the natural love out of blood relationship had not eroded among them and that was the reason why the deceased intervened and questioned the accused as to why he was attacking his own parents and in order to prevent his highhanded acts, even gave a slap to him. In this backdrop, he would argue, it is highly unlikely that the family members of the deceased would ruthlessly implicate the accused instead of prosecuting the real culprit. So far as PW.4 is concerned, he argued that admittedly he had no talking terms with the accused since few years prior to the incident. However, both accused and deceased are his cousin brothers and therefore there is no reason for him to implicate the accused in a false case just because of the property disputes. He thus argued that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 4 is intrinsic and mutually corroborative
