iW;sNI»3fe-<f' v |^S:£-,';^^'@*.?.3^^^.^;..£^_; """aa:asa& CriminalApTiealNo. 983 of 2004 has to be laid and the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (12) The Apex Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Apex Court aiso observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one (Please see Namdeo -Vs- State of Maharashtra. 2007 AIR SCW 1835). (13) Therefore, it cannot be held that the sole testimony of Sunotin Bai (PW-1) cannot be relied on only on the ground that she was the wife of the deceased. In fact, we are to scrutinize her evidence with due care and caution and if her evidence is found to be credible in appreciation, the conviction can well be based on her sole testimony.