conducted by PW21 and it is a reasonable possibility that the eye witnesses were brought in to create a fool proof case. The evidence of DW3 Criminal Appeal No. 1031/2015 and others Page 16 of 26and DW4, both senior officers who had exercised supervision over the investigation conducted by PW21, indicates that the so- called eye witnesses of the incident were actually accessories after the fact and not accessories to the fact. 24. The second limb of the objection against the testimonies of the eye witnesses is that none of the eye witnesses is an independent witness of fact. Ordinarily, there is no rule of law to discard the testimonies of the witnesses merely be-cause they were known to the victim or belonged to her family. For, an offence may be committed in circumstances that only the family members are present at the place of occurrence in natural course. However, the present case does not fall in such category. In the facts of the present case, the natural presence of the eye