Judgment Nunumani Prasad Singh, J. 1. Appellant Kamdeo Chourasia and his brother Ramdeo Chourasia were tried by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai, on the charge of murder of Om Prakash Sharma. The appellant Kamdeo Chourasia was found guilty of the charge and convicted u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused Ramdeo Chourasia was, however, acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 6.11.1985 at about 6 P.M. the informant Ashok Kumar P.W. 7 was sitting on his Darwaza alongwith his father Sahdeo Sharma P.W. 8 and his elder brother Omprakash Sharma, since deceased. At that time appellant Kamdeo Chourasia came there and persuaded Omprakash, since deceased, to accompanying him to his house for an urgent work. Ten minutes thereafter the informant heard the sound of firing and shouting of Omprakash that appellant Kamdeo had shot him. The informant: his father, mother and others rushed there and found Omprakash lying unconscious in a pool of blood and appellant Kamdeo and his brother Ramdeo fleeing away. With the help of Jai Jai Ram P. W. 4, Ram Parvesh Chourasia P.W. 5 and others, the informant moved Om Prakash to Sahpur Kamal State Dispensary for his treatment where he gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 2) to P.W. 9 Ram Swaraup Mahto Officer-in-charge, Sahpur Kamal Police Station. On the basis of fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was drawn up and a case u/s. 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Omprakash Sharma was removed to the Begusarai Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, this case was converted into one u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After the investigation and charge sheet, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution examined in all 10 P.Ws. at the trial out of whom P.W. 1 Arun Kumar Sharma is an eye witness to the occurrence. He saw the appellant Kamdeo Chourasia and his brother Ramdeo Chourasia firing at the deceased and heard the shouting of Omprakash that appellant Kamdeo Chourasia and his brother Ramdeo Chourasia had shot him. 5. The prosecution examined in all 10 P.Ws. at the trial out of whom P.W. 1 Arun Kumar Sharma is an eye witness to the occurrence. He saw the appellant Kamdeo Chourasia and his brother Ramdeo Chourasia firing at the deceased and heard the shouting of Omprakash that appellant Kamdeo Chourasia and his brother Ramdeo Chourasia had shot him. P.W. 2 Tula Devi, P.W. 3 Sarjug Chourasia went to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing and saw the appellant Kamdeo Chourasia fleeing away from there. P.W. 4 Jai Ram, P.W. 6 Saro Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar the Informant and P.W. 8 Sahdeo Sharma, father of the deceased, went to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing and shouting of Omprakash who told them that Kamdeo had shot at and injured him. P.W. 5 Ram Parvesh Chourasia saw two persons fleeing from the place of occurrence while he was returning to his home, but he could not identify any of them. P..W. 9 Ram Swarup Mahto is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W. 10 Dr. R.N. Singh has held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 6. P.W. 10 Dr. R.N. Singh has deposed that on 7.11.1985 at 10 A.M. he held the post mortem examination on the dead body of Om Prakash and found the following injuries: (i) 1/4" circular wound with inverted margin. There was burnt area 1/2" around the wound of posterior surface of right hand 2" below elbow joint. It was the wound of entrance. (ii) 1/2" circular wound with inverted margin on flex or surface and medial border of right hand 3% below elbow joint. It was the wound of exit. (iii) 1/4" circular wound with inverted margin on right side of lumber region of abdomen 4" away and side by amlacus. On dissection wound traversed upward piercing the whole thickness of skin, muscles of that area, peritonium and puncturing the right kidney, lobes of intestine and spleen. The bullet was lodged beneath the skin at the back at the level of 10th rib which was taken out. The death in his opinion was caused by fire arm. Time elapsed since death was 06 to 24 hours. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased. He has proved post mortem examination report (Ext. 6). 7. The death in his opinion was caused by fire arm. Time elapsed since death was 06 to 24 hours. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased. He has proved post mortem examination report (Ext. 6). 7. Miss Madhurima Gupta learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Arun Kumar Sharma P.W. 1 has deposed as an eye-witness to the occurrence. But part of his evidence that accused Ramdeo Chourasia had also fired at the deceased was disbelieved by the trial court and Ramdeo Chourasia was acquitted. The remaining part of his evidence that he had seen the appellant firing at the deceased therefore cannot be believed and relied upon. The contention of learned counsel is fallacious. In the present case the part evidence of P.W. 1 Arun Kumar Sharma that he heard the shouting of deceased that he was shot at by the appellant is corroborated by all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is also obvious from the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6. 7 and 8 that when they went to the place of occurrence on hearing the shouting of the deceased, the deceased told them that he was shot at by the appellant. The evidence of P.W. 1 that he saw the appellant ruing at the deceased stands supported by the statement of the deceased made to P.Ws. 4, 6.7 and 8. Therefore the evidence of P.W. 1 as an eye-witness to the occurrence cannot be disbelieved. 8. If part evidence of a witness is disbelieved for want of corroboration the remaining part of his evidence which is corroborated on material points by other reliable witnesses can be believed and accepted and the accused can be convicted relying upon such evidence. 9. It was further contended that the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are related and interested witnesses. Therefore no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It is true that P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 to whom the deceased is said to have disclosed the name of the appellant as his assailant are close relations of the deceased. It is well settled that the relationship by itself is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the witness if the evidence of the witness is otherwise found to be fit and reliable. In the present case the evidence of P.Ws. It is well settled that the relationship by itself is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the witness if the evidence of the witness is otherwise found to be fit and reliable. In the present case the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 who is an independent witness. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 7 and 8 is further supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve and discard the evidence of P.Ws. 6,7 and 8. 10. Miss Gupta also contended that the medical evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. R.N. Singh falsify the ocular evidence of P.Ws. None of the P. W s. has said that they heard the sound of firing of two shots whereas evidence of Dr. R.N. Singh P.W. 10 and post mortem examination report (Ext. 6) indicate that there were three fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased. Injury No. 1 was wound of entry and injury No. 2 was wound of exit. Both the injuries were communicating to each other. Therefore, they were caused by one shot. The third injury was on the abdomen and bullet was lodged beneath the skin. The prosecution has not explained how the third injury was caused to the deceased and who caused that injury. 11. It is true that the ocular evidence of the P.Ws. is specific that they heard the firing of two shots but their evidence is consistent that they heard the shouting of the deceased that he was shot at by the appellant. The deceased had disclosed the name of the appellant to the P.Ws. 4,6, 7 and 8 that he was shot at by the appellant. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws. The injury sustained by the deceased thus stands explained satisfactorily. The witnesses never expected that some occurrence would take place. Therefore, they might not have been so attentive to hear such incident. There was no animosity between the appellant and the family members of the deceased. The relation between the two families was cordial. There is no reason of false implication of the appellant in this case. 12. Lastly, it was contended that the appellant was juvenile at the time of occurrence and even during the trial. There was no animosity between the appellant and the family members of the deceased. The relation between the two families was cordial. There is no reason of false implication of the appellant in this case. 12. Lastly, it was contended that the appellant was juvenile at the time of occurrence and even during the trial. The appellant has given out his age 16 years while he was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he should have been tried by a Juvenile Court in accordance with Juvenile Justice Act but he was tried by a regular court. The conviction of the appellant is bad in law. In this connection, it may be mentioned that at no stage of the case either before the magistrate or before the trial court the plea of his minority was raised by the appellant. The trial court has estimated the age of the appellant to be 24 years at the time of recording his statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. But no objection was raised by the appellant. The plea of minority taken by the appellant at this stage is a lame excuse. 13. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.