Is a witness related to the deceased an interested witness by reason of the relationship alone, unless the testimony shows a ring of falsity?

Paragraph 19True, the said theory was propounded and followed in cases of purely circumstantial evidence. In the present case, there was direct evidence proffered by the prosecution insofar as the eyewitnesses are concerned. However, we must emphasize that the majority of the eyewitnesses were close relatives; PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6 and PW10. We have already found that, though, the narration of the incident, more or less tallied, there are discrepancies and circumstances, which persuade us not to place an unflinching reliance on those testimonies. Related witnesses merely for their relationship with the deceased cannot be called interested witnesses. But when, from the circumstances, as in the present case, where there is found a ring of falsity in their testimonies, a closer scrutiny is warranted. If the incident occurred at the front yard of the house, then the related witnesses are not chance witnesses and could be relied on. But there is no clear substantiation in this case, as to the scene of occurrence. The independent witness PW8, though, spoke of having accompanied PW2, there was no corroboration on that aspect by PW2, making him also a doubtful eyewitness.