Judgment S.N.Jha and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. The sole appellant of this appeal has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution of the appellant was set at motion on the Fardbeyan of Md. Ghaffar of village Ram Sahar, P.S. Barhara, district Bhojpur. On 11.12.1991 at about 7.45 P.M. he stated before the Officer-in-charge of Barahara police station that his elder brother, Md. Ayub, had gone to Matukpur Bazar for selling bangles. While returning from Matukpur Bazar, he reached the outskirts of village Rampur Sahar at about 5.30 P.M. The appellant, resident of the same village, asked him as to why there was delay and whether the articles had been sold. Md. Ayub stated that bangles worth Rs. 1,200/- were sold and proceeded ahead when the appellant gave knife blows on his chest and abdomen causing bleeding injuries. Md. Ayub fell down injured. Co-villagers Ramjash Dusadh and Akalu Ram reached there and saw the occurrence. He (Ghaffar) was informed about the incident by one Jag Narain Sah. When he reached the place he saw his brother lying unconscious in injured condition. A large number of persons had assembled there. His nephew Md. Hussain informed him that the appellant had given knife blows and fled away. Md. Ayub was taken to the Hospital on a cot. The compounder of the hospital referred him to one Dr. Sinha who later told that Ayub had died. The dead body was then taken to the police station where he made his Fardbeyan. 3. On on the basis of the said Fardbeyan Barhara RS. Case No. 201/91 was registered and investigation commenced. After completing necessary formalities chargesheet was submitted against the appellant and thus he was put on trial. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case, out of them P.W. 2 Md. Mahboob Alam was tendered while P.W. 4 Chandrakali Devi and P.W. 5 Rajmania Devi turned hostile. Among the remaining witnesses, informant (Md.) Abdul Ghaffar was examined as P.W. 1. Md. Sahabuddin who too claimed to have reached the place of occurrence and learnt about the same was examined as P.W. 7. Md. Hussain, son of the deceased and an eye witness, was examined as P.W. 3. Dr. T.N. Prasad who held autopsy was examined as P.W. 6. Md. Sahabuddin who too claimed to have reached the place of occurrence and learnt about the same was examined as P.W. 7. Md. Hussain, son of the deceased and an eye witness, was examined as P.W. 3. Dr. T.N. Prasad who held autopsy was examined as P.W. 6. It would appear that out of these material witnesses, P.W. 1 Abdul Ghaffar and P.W. 7 Md. Sahabuddin were examined as hearsay witnesses. The only witness who claimed to have seen the occurrence is P.W. 3 Md. Hussain. 5. Sri Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that P.W. 3 Md. Hussain should not be believed, for, had he actually seen the occurrence, being the son of the deceased, he should have lodged the F.I.R. himself. In fact he did not even sign the F.I.R. as attesting witness which creates doubt about his presence not only at the time of occurrence but also at the time of lodging of the case. Secondly, on the own saying of P.W. 3 he was a school going boy and the school being open on the day of occurrence, he was not likely to have accompanied the deceased. Thirdly, P.W. 3 identified the appellant by voice. Identification by voice is a weak evidence on the point of identification. As in the instant case darkness had set in at the time of incident, the claim of RW. 3 to have seen the appellant giving knife blows on the deceased should be disbelieved. Counsel also submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 should be discarded as inadmissible as they did not see the occurrence themselves and being hearsay witness their account of the occurrence cannot be taken into consideration. Further, counsel submitted, F.l.R. witnesses such as Ramjas Dusadh, Aklu Ram and Jag Narain Sah were not examined. In fact, the investigating Officer was also not examined and in absence of the independent witness, the Court should not place much reliance on the evidence of P.W. 3 who apart from being son of the deceased was a boy of tender age, being 12 years old at the time of occurrence. 6. Though the fate of the case mainly depends upon the evidence of RW. 3 Md. Hussain, it would be worth noticing the evidence of P.Ws. 6. Though the fate of the case mainly depends upon the evidence of RW. 3 Md. Hussain, it would be worth noticing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 since they claim to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident took place and thus their evidence may have a corroborative value. 7. P.W. 1 Abdul Ghaffar stated that on the date of occurrence the deceased had gone to Matukpur Bazar for selling bangles. In the evening while he was returning from the Bazar, at about 5.30 P.M. the appellant met him at Ram Sahar Chawar i.e. outskirts of the village and attacked him with knife. He learnt about his death from one Jag Narain Sah of the same village. When he reached the place of occurrence he found his brother Ayub lying in an injured and unconscious state. He was informed by his nephew Md. Hussain that the appellant son of Bhola Sah had given two knife blows to him and fled away. The wives of Mahant Rai and Ram Prasad Rai (Chandrakali Devi and Rajmania Devi who were examined as RWs. 4 and 5 but turned hostile) had also told them that the appellant had given knife blows to his brother and had fled away. The deceased was carried to the Hospital where the doctor declared him to be dead. Thereafter they reached the police station and lodged the Fard Beyan. in the cross examination this witness stated that the dispute was going on between the families of the appellant and his family on the point of putting Marai on the wall. They were neighbours. He stated that though he was not aware of the distance between village Ram Sahar and Matukpur Bazar, it takes half an hour to reach there. Further it takes 10 minutes to cover the distance between his house and Ram Sahar Chawar i.e. the place of occurrence. Matukpur Bazar is held three days in a week, namely, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. After the occurrence it took half an hour to reach the hospital. They stayed at the hospital for about 10-15 minutes. Then they went to the police station in about 20 minutes time. 8. P.W. 7 Md. Shahabuddin stated in his evidence that he had reached the place of occurrence after hearing about the incident. He found Ayub lying injured in a pool of blood. Md. They stayed at the hospital for about 10-15 minutes. Then they went to the police station in about 20 minutes time. 8. P.W. 7 Md. Shahabuddin stated in his evidence that he had reached the place of occurrence after hearing about the incident. He found Ayub lying injured in a pool of blood. Md. Hussain informed him that the appellant had assaulted his father. Ayub was later taken to Matukpur Hospital. As no doctor was available there they went to Block Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The dead body was then taken to the police station. 9. P.W. 3 Md. Hussain stated that he was accompanying his father from Matukpur Bazar and when they reached near Karha, he saw the appellant standing. The appellant spoke to his father about the delay and whether the articles had been sold. His father told him that bangles worth Rs. 1,200/- were sold. Saying this his father moved ahead when the appellant came from behind and gave two knife blowsone on the chest and the other on the abdomen, as a result of which his father fell down. In the meantime wives of Mahant Rai and Ram Prasad Rai (P.Ws. 4 and 5) reached there. They asked Md. Ayub about the assailant. His father told them that the appellant had given him knife blows. 10. It may be mentioned here that before examining P.W. 3, the learned trial judge put certain questions to satisfy himself about his power of understanding considering the age of the witness (12 1/2-13 years). Only on being satisfied that the witness was competent to depose, he proceeded to record his evidence. We may observe that there is possibility of a child witness giving tutored evidence but in the instant case considering that no contradiction or even material omission was elicited in his cross examination, it would appear that his account of occurrence which he gave before the police one and a half years prior to his examination in Court was consistent ruling out the possibility of concoction or tutoring. 11. P.W. 3 in his Gross examination admitted that the School of which he was student runs between 10 oclock and 4 oclock and that on the day of occurrence also the school was open. He, however, clarified that we went to Matukpur Bazar at 4 oclock i.e. after the school was closed. 11. P.W. 3 in his Gross examination admitted that the School of which he was student runs between 10 oclock and 4 oclock and that on the day of occurrence also the school was open. He, however, clarified that we went to Matukpur Bazar at 4 oclock i.e. after the school was closed. He further explained that the school was situated half Kos i.e. one mile away from his house. As noticed above, the distance between Matukpur Bazar and village Ram Sahar could be covered within half an lour. Thus the witness could conveniently go to Matukpur Bazar after close of the school and accompany his father on his way back. RW. 3 stated that his father was not able to sell bangles before he reached the Bazar and thereafter bangles worth Rs. 1,200/- were sold. The fact that the deceased was late in returningabout which the appellant also asked himsupprts the version of RW. 3 of going to the Bazar after close of the school and ban gles being sold late afternoon. 12. P.W. 3 was questioned on the point of identification in response to which the stated that he recognized the appellant both by voice as well as by face. Though he had covered other parts of his body, his face was not covered and, therefore, there was no difficulty in identifying him. As noticed above, as per evidence of P.W. 1, the house of the appellant was adjacent to his house. As a matter of fact, they shared a common boundary wall and that is how dispute had arisen on account of putting up Marai on that wall. Being a close neighbour the claim of P.W. 3 to identify the assailant even though darkness had set in, both by voice as well as by his look, does not appear to be doubted. It is true that being son of the deceased RW. 3 is an interested witness but that does not mean that on that account his evidence should be discarded. Rather being son of the deceased and his claim of accompanying him from the market being reliable, it would appear that he was a natural witness and his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. The defence has failed to make any dent in his evidence and he thus must be held to be a reliable witness. Rather being son of the deceased and his claim of accompanying him from the market being reliable, it would appear that he was a natural witness and his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. The defence has failed to make any dent in his evidence and he thus must be held to be a reliable witness. It is well settled that subject to reliability test, evidence of solitary witness is sufficient to convict the accused. 13. The case was instituted within the shortest possible time. The occurrence took place at about 5.30 P.M. The deceased was thereafter taken to the hospital-firstly to Matukpur hospital and then to Block hospital. From the evidence of P.W, 1 it appears that it took half an hour to cover the distance from the place of occurrence to the hospital on a cot i.e. on foot. After staying in the Hospital for about 10-15 minutes, they went to the police station where the fardbeyan was lodged at about 7.45 RM. The promptness with which the case was lodged gave little time to the informant to concoct a false case. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the relationship between the two families was strained because of dispute relating to putting up Marai which probably provided the motive to the appellant to commit the crime. Apparently he was waiting for the deceased at the place of occurrence and that is why he asked him as to why there was delay in returning from the market. 14. It is true that some F.I.R. witnesses were not examined nor the Investigating Officer was examined. However,. as often said, the strength of the case of a party does not lie in the quantity but the quality of evidence led by it. Where the evidence is reliable and the witness is trustworthy, it is immaterial if the witnesses named in the F.I.R. are not examined. The fate of the case depends on the evidence brought on the record and, therefore, the fact that some of the witnesses named in the F.I.R. were not examined has little consequence. So far the Investigating Officer is concerned, considering the account of the occurrence given by P.W. 3 as also P.Ws. The fate of the case depends on the evidence brought on the record and, therefore, the fact that some of the witnesses named in the F.I.R. were not examined has little consequence. So far the Investigating Officer is concerned, considering the account of the occurrence given by P.W. 3 as also P.Ws. 1 and 7 was the same as before the police, the fact that no contradiction whatsoever was elicited from their cross examination, it follows that non-examination of the Investigating Officer did not cause any prejudice to the appellant. 15. The medical evidence also fits in with the manner of occurrence stated by P.W. 3. The doctor found two incised woundsone on the lower part of chest (right) of size 3" x 3/4" x chest cavity deep and the other on the right hypocondrium region of the abdomen (upper part of right abdomen) size 2" x 3/4" x abdominal cavity deep. As seen above RW. 3 had stated that after the deceased moved ahead, the appellant came from behind and gave one knife blow on the chest and another on the abdomen. This is what was found by the doctor in the post mortem. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction of the appellant does not warrant any interference by this Court. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.