Judgment Mridula Mishra, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted by the 5th Additional District and Session Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 1999 by judgment and order dated 5.8.2000/ 8.8.2000, under Section 302 of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Further he has been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. On the basis of fardbeyan of Gauri Shankar Verma recorded by the Officer-in- charge of Bhagan Bigha O.P. on 24.8.1999 at 10.30 p.m. the case was instituted against the appellant. In the fardbeyan it was stated by the informant that he along with his brother-in-law Arjun Kumar Verma had gone on a scooter to Sohsarai at 6 p.m. to purchase some clothes. They purchased clothes from Nancy Textile and Shri Tarni Textile and they returned back to village Patasang at about 9 P.M. He saw Pramod Kumar Verma standing in front of his darwaja, when reached near the house. The informant came down from the scooter. He took the bundle of the clothes and went towards the door. His brother- in-law parked his scooter and was coming towards the house at that very time Pramod Kumar Verma opened fire which hit Arjun Kumar Verma in the stomach. Arjun Kumar Verma fell down and shouted that Pramod has shot him. The informant tried to catch hold of Arjun Kumar Verma in the meantime Pramod Kumar Verma ran away towards the western road. Several villagers heard the sound of firing and assembled there. They saw Arjun Kumar Verma in injured condition. Arjun Kumar Verma was brought to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif where doctors declared him dead. The motive behind the occurrence is said to be the dispute regarding partition of the house for which the case was being contested in the Court. 3. The case was registered against the sole appellant. It was investigated and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On submission of charge- sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined all together ten witnesses. Out of these 10 witnesses, PW 8, and PW 4 have been examined as eye-witnesses. On submission of charge- sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined all together ten witnesses. Out of these 10 witnesses, PW 8, and PW 4 have been examined as eye-witnesses. PW 1 is the wife of deceased, who is hearsay witness. PW 2 the father of the deceased and PW 3 the brother of the deceased have only deposed that they heard that Arjun was killed and they saw the dead body. They have not stated anything as to who killed him. PW 5, PW 6 and PW 9 have been declared hostile. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer of this case and PW 7 is Dr. S.B. Sharan who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The defence has also examined one witness namely Ashok Kumar Singh who has proved the signature of Pramod Kumar Verma on the complaint petition. 5. It is an admitted case that in the night of 24.2.1999 at about 9 p.m. Arjun Kumar was killed, but the defence of the appellant is that he has falsely been implicated because of dispute regarding partition of house and property. 6. PW 1 Manju Devi is the wife of the deceased and a hearsay witness. She has said that at the time of occurrence she was not present in her house at village Patasang. On 24.21999 at 6 O clock she went to her fathers house at Bajitpur. She was at Bajitpur when she was informed by her brother PW 8 that Arjun Kumar Verma has been killed by Pramod Kumar Verma. She came to village Patasan on 25.2.1999 at 7 Oclock in the morning. Her son PW 4 also disclosed before her that Paramod Kumar Verma had fired at her husband and he died due to the injuries received by him. She has stated that occurrence took place because of some dispute regarding partition of the residential house. She has stated that prior to the occurrence her husband had filed an informatory petition before the SDO that he apprehended danger to his life at the instance of the appellant and other family members. She has stated that occurrence took place because of some dispute regarding partition of the residential house. She has stated that prior to the occurrence her husband had filed an informatory petition before the SDO that he apprehended danger to his life at the instance of the appellant and other family members. She admitted that all other family members including father and other brothers of her husband were in support of Pramod Kumar Verma. Suggestion was given to her that since there was dispute regarding house the appellant has falsely been implicated, which she denied. 7. PWs 2 and 3 are father and brother of the deceased. PW 2 has stated that in the night of 24.2.1999 at 9 Oclock he came to know that his son Arjun has been killed. He saw the dead body which was lying on the road. He did not accompany his son while he was being taken to Hospital. PW 2 has denied that there was any dispute in between the deceased and Pramod Kumar Verma, regarding partition of residential house. He has stated that till date he has no knowledge who has fired at Arjun Kumar Verma. PW 3 is the brother of the deceased. He has also not stated as tc who killed Arjun. He said that he heard the sound of firing, come out of his house and saw the dead body. He accompanied PW 8 when Arjun was being taken to Sadar Hospital and there he was declared dead. He has also stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the accused had already left that place. Till date he did not know who fired at Arjun. 8. PW 4 is the son of the deceased. He has stated that on 24.2.1999 at 9 p.m. he was studying inside his house. He heard the sound of scooter and he came out of the house with the lantern. He saw his maternal uncle coming towards the house with the bundle of clothes. At that very time his uncle Pramod Kumar Verma opened fire at his father and he fell down. PW 3 carried his father to hospital where he died. He has specifically stated that his father was killed by his uncle due to family partition. His mother Was not present in the house as she had gone to her fathers place. At that very time his uncle Pramod Kumar Verma opened fire at his father and he fell down. PW 3 carried his father to hospital where he died. He has specifically stated that his father was killed by his uncle due to family partition. His mother Was not present in the house as she had gone to her fathers place. His statement was recorded by the police on 1.3.1999. He denied the suggestion that he had stated before the police that on 22.4.1999 at 9 p.m. he was sleeping inside the house. He came out of the house after hearing the sound of firing and then he was informed by his uncle PW 8 that Pramod has fired at his father. He saw his father lying dead. He also denied the suggestion that he has been tutored to depose as an eye-witness in the Court. 9. PW 8 is the informant and an eyewitness of the occurrence. He has stated that the deceased was his brother-in-law. He was killed on 22.4.1999 at 9.p.m. On 22.4.1999 at 6 p.m. he along with his brother-in-law had gone on a scooter to Sohsarai for purchasing clothes. They purchased clothes from Nancy Textime, Sri Tarani Textile and Priyanka Textile. After purchasing clothes they reached near the house at village Patasang at about 9 p.m. he saw Pramod Kumar standing in front of his door. His nephew Avinash PW 4 had opened the door and came out of the house with the lantern. He collected the bundle of clothes and proceeded towards the house. His brother-in-law after parking the scooter was coming towards his house, at that very time Pramod Kumar opened fire which hit his brother-in-law in his chest as a result of which he fell down. He ran towards his brother-in-law to save him from falling, in the meantime Pramod ran away from that place. On hearing the sound of firing PWs 2, 3, PW 5 and some other villagers came there. Arjun Kumar Verma was taken to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif with the help of PW 3 and PW 5 where the doctor declared him dead. He also has corroborated this fact that reason behind the occurrence was partition of residential house. He has admitted his signature in his fardbeyan Ext. 2 and proved the signature of PW 3 on it marked as Ext. He also has corroborated this fact that reason behind the occurrence was partition of residential house. He has admitted his signature in his fardbeyan Ext. 2 and proved the signature of PW 3 on it marked as Ext. 2/A. He has further stated that in the night of occurrence itself the IO came to village Patasang and had seized blood stained earth from PO, and prepared a seizure list. He has proved signature of PW 8 and PW 9 on seizure list as Ext. 2/B and 2/C. He also admitted his signature on inquest report as Ext. 2/D and signature of PW 3 on the inquest report as Ext. 2/E. PW 8 has stated that at the time of occurrence he used to reside at village Patasang. He along with his brother-in-law used to sell clothes as Hawkers in villages. He had produced the bills and receipts before the Investigating Officer to corroborate the purchase made by him and his brother-in-law on the date of occurrence. He admitted that though there was police out post in way to hospital, but he did not inform the police at that time as the injured was with him. PW 8 has stated that the deceased was own brother of PW 3 and the appellant. PW 5 is the cousin of the deceased. PW 2 is the father of the deceased. He further stated that the houses of the deceased and appellant were adjacent facing each other. He has denied the suggestion that PW 4 was not present at the time of occurrence and has not witnessed the occurrence. He has stated that he saw the deceased receiving injury at his front and the pillet coming out from the back side. He admitted that one day prior to the occurrence deceased had stated before him about filing of an informatory petition against the appellant. A suggestion has been given to PW 8 that he was not present at the time of occurrence, which he denied. 10. PW 7 is Dr. S.B. Sharan who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. A suggestion has been given to PW 8 that he was not present at the time of occurrence, which he denied. 10. PW 7 is Dr. S.B. Sharan who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that on 25.2.1999 at 9 a.m. he held post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Arjun Kumar Verma and he found one lacerated wound with black and inverted margine 1 /4" situated on left side of front of chest below nipple, wound of entry, (ii) one lacerated wound with everted margin 1/2" situated on back on left side below infra scapular region wound of exit. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemmorhage due to injuries caused by fire. arms. In the opinion of PW 7 time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. On dissection he found tear of heart and lung and blood present in left chest cavity. Injuries were sufficient to cause death. He proved the post-mortem report as Ext. 1. 11. PW 10 is the IO of this case. He has stated that on 24.2.1999 he was posted at Bhagan Bigha O.P. and on that date he registered a case on the basis of fardbeyan of Gauri Shanker Verma. The fardbeyan was recorded by Dilip Kumar Yadav, the Officer-in-charge of the out post. He has proved the fardbeyan as Ext. 3 and endorsement on fardbeyan as Ext. 3/A and admitted that he prepared inquest report Ext 5, seizure list Ext. 6. He has stated that since he was authorised to investigate the case he recorded the re-statement of the informant. He received the clothes of deceased which was handed over to him after post-mortem. He visited the place of occurrence which is house of the deceased and it was shown to him by PW 8. Near the P.O. there is a road which goes from east to west. House of Rajeshwar Sao is adjacent south to P.O. He recorded the statement of witnesses and after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. PW 10 has further stated that in course of investigation the informant had produced the bills and receipts showing purchase of clothes on the date of occurrence. He had recorded the statement of PWs 5 and 6. House of Rajeshwar Sao is adjacent south to P.O. He recorded the statement of witnesses and after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. PW 10 has further stated that in course of investigation the informant had produced the bills and receipts showing purchase of clothes on the date of occurrence. He had recorded the statement of PWs 5 and 6. PW 5 had stated before him that on hearing the sound of firing he came at the place of occurrence and saw Arjun lying there with fire arm injury in his chest. He also stated that PW 8 had informed him that Pramod Kumar had fired at Arjun Kumar Verma. PW 6 had stated that he came to know about the occurrence saw the dead body of the deceased. PW 1 had stated before him that she was not present and she reached village Patasang on the next day after receiving information. PW 10 further stated that PW 4, had stated before him that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping inside the room and on hearing the sound of firing he came out. I.O. has also deposed that PW 8 had not stated\ before him that PW 4 came out with lantern at the door when he and deceased came back after purchasing clothes. A suggestion has been given to this witness that he investigated the case in connivance with the prosecution, which has been denied. 12. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove its cause beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has introduced PW 4 as an eye-witness at a belated stage in the trial. In the FIR there is no mention about presence of PW 4. There is no whisper that he came out of the house with the lantern, when deceased and informant reached there at 9 p.m. It has also been submitted that informant was not present at village Patasang at the time of occurrence. He was at Barh, he came after receiving the information about occurrence and filed a false case in collusion with police. FIR also reached to Court after delay of two days. The means of identification has been introduced during the trial, as there is no mentioning about means of identification in FIR. 13. He was at Barh, he came after receiving the information about occurrence and filed a false case in collusion with police. FIR also reached to Court after delay of two days. The means of identification has been introduced during the trial, as there is no mentioning about means of identification in FIR. 13. From perusal of evidence it is apparent that PW 2 and PW 3 have not deposed on the point of participation of appellant or any one in the occurrence. PWs 5, 6 and 9 have been declared hostile. PW 1 the wife of the deceased is a hearsay witness. So far as PW 4 is concerned his name has not been mentioned in the FIR as an eye-witness. A suggestion was also given to PW 4 that he had stated before the police that he was sleeping at the time of occurrence and he came to know about the occurrence through PW 8, which he denied. PW 10 has also admitted this fact that PW 4 had not stated before him that he saw the occurrence. It is the fact that in the FIR there is no mention about the PW 4 as an eye-witness to the occurrence. Even if the evidence of PW 4 is disbelieved as an eyewitness, the evidence of PW 8 is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution which is consistent trustworthy and also corroborated by the medical evidence. 14. The prosecution story is that PW 8 was along with the deceased at the time of occurrence. He is the informant of this case. He immediately brought the injured/deceased to Biharsharif Hospital. On the basis of his fardbeyan within one hour of the occurrence the FIR was instituted. Statement of PW 8 that the firing was made from close range has been corroborated by medical evidence. Investigating Officer PW 10 has also staled that when he reached at Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif, PW 8 and PW 3 were present there. PW 8 accompanied PW 10 to the place of occurrence in the night of occurrence itself. PW 10 also admitted that in presence of PW 8 seizure list and inquest report were prepared by him in the night of occurrence itself. Considering all these evidence the plea of defence that PW 8 is not an eye-witness and was not present at the time of occurrence has no legs to stand. PW 10 also admitted that in presence of PW 8 seizure list and inquest report were prepared by him in the night of occurrence itself. Considering all these evidence the plea of defence that PW 8 is not an eye-witness and was not present at the time of occurrence has no legs to stand. In course of investigation PW 8 had produced the bills and receipts showing purchase made by the deceased and PW 8 in the evening of 24.2.1999 i.e. just before the occurrence. The motive for offence is also corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 who has stated that one day prior to the occurrence her husband had filed an informatory petition before the Court in which he had disclosed clanger to his life from the appellant and other family members. PW 8 has stated that only one fire was made by the appellant which hit the deceased at his chest and it came out from his back. This evidence has been corroborated by the post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor PW 7. For proving prosecution case there is no legal requirement of multiplicity of witnesses, evidence of witnesses, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence, is sufficient for maintaining conviction. Evidence of PW 8 is sufficient to prove the prosecution version. 15. All these circumstances are sufficient to show that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence has not been able to bring any circumstance to indicate that the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence was different. 16. On consideration of these materials we find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court does not require interference. Under the circumstances the conviction of sole appellant and the sentence awarded to him are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Rama Nandan Prasad, J. 17 I agree.