his neck and even gave a tooth bite on his ear. This was witnessed by victim’s wife and mother, who came for his rescue. Thereafter, an FIR Ex.PW-1/A was lodged with the police. Such statement is fully supported by PW-3 Gian Chand, father, PW-4 Sumitra Devi, mother, PW-5 Asha Devi, wife and PW-6 Ashok Kumar, brother-in-law, of PW-1. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the statements of the witnesses, referred to above, cannot be looked into as these all witnesses are related and interested witnesses. However, I am afraid that such contention is totally misplaced as a natural witness or the only possible eye witness cannot always be termed as ‘interested witness’. It is more than settled that evidence of an interested witness is not to be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of interested witnesses, even if it is assumed, does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once the approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witnesses has a ring of truth, such evidence can be relied upon even without corroboration.
