contended that P.W.1 is a brother of the deceased and is an interested witness and therefore, falsely added the names of the Appellants. In the considered view of the Court, evidence of a witness is not to be straightaway discarded or viewed with great amount of suspicion for the reason that he is a relative of the victim. It is alleged that P.W.1 projected himself as an eye witness by claiming that he was present near the shop of one Dinabandhu Sethi but in the spot map i.e. Ext.10, it has not been indicated, the fact which was admitted by P.W.12. But such elicitation from P.W.12 by itself is not sufficient to reject the entire evidence of P.W.1. Whether P.W.1 was referring to the house or shop of said Dinabandhu Sethi which in any case could not be substantiated cannot be a ground to disbelieve whole of his evidence. It is also contended that the scribe of the FIR was not examined and also a charge sheeted witness, namely, Santosh Maharana at whose shop P.W.2 was present, whereas, the witnesses, namely, P.W.6 and P.W.11 were picked up for examination. In fact, such non-examination of a witness has not affected or dented the prosecution claim as all the material witnesses including P.W.1 have been examined. It is claimed that the vehicle in question in which the accused persons arrived was not seized by P.W.12 which again cannot be a ground to reject the version of the prosecution. Admittedly P.W.12 has not seized any paper with regard to the alleged lease of the tank. However, from the evidence of P.W.2 and others, such fact of dispute between the parties relating to a tank has surfaced to which the motive stands attributed. As to the citations, the Court considers
