MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED Vijay Kumar @ Kalloo Singh, son of Vir Pal Singh, has preferred this appeal form Jail against the judgment and order dated 14. 10. 2003 whereby he was found guilty under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts as revealed from the FIR and other material on record are as under: ( 3 ) VIR Pal, the deceased, had three sons, namely Vijay Kumar @ Kalloo Singh, Sudesh Singh and Aadhesh Singh. He had four daughters also, including Amresha. The first two daughters were married. The appellant is the eldest son of his father. The deceased had given about 4 Bighas agricultural land to the appellant for cultivation which was mortgaged by him. He was, therefore, demanding more land for cultivation. ( 4 ) ON 30. 6. 2000 at about 9-45 A. M. , some altercation was going on between father and son (appellant) regarding partition of the land. The appellant lost his temper and fired two shots at his father with a view to kill him. He used country made pistol (Tamancha) for killing. Sudesh Singh and Aadhesh Singh, sons of the deceased, and Smt. Premwati raised hue and cry and the villagers arrived there. In the meantime, the appellant ran away along with Tamancha. ( 5 ) SMT. Premwati, wife of the deceased, arranged a Jeep and took her husband to Madnapur along with Munne, Satya Pal, brothers of the deceased, and her sons. She got a report prepared by one Surendra Pal Singh and lodged FIR on the same day at 10-30 A. M. at Police station Madnapur. ( 6 ) HEAD-MOHARRIR Shiv Kumar Singh prepared chick report and made entry in the G. D. at serial no. 17. ( 7 ) THE injured was sent to P. H. C. Madnapur but the doctor was not available there. He was, therefore, referred to Combined District Hospital, Shahjahanpur where P. W. 5 N. K. Mishra E. M. O. examined him on the same day at 11-15 A. M. and found two gun shot wounds of entry on the left upper forearm and left lower chest and wound of exit on the left lower back. All the three injuries were caused by firearm, including Tamancha and were fresh at the time of examination. All the three injuries were caused by firearm, including Tamancha and were fresh at the time of examination. ( 8 ) AFTER registration of the case under Section 307 I. P. C. , P. W. 4 S. I. Aditya Prakash took up investigation. He interrogated Smt. Premwati and after inspection of the scene of incident, prepared site-plan. He recovered a Khokha, blood stained earth and plain earth on the spot and prepared a Fard. ( 9 ) VIR Pal succumbed to the injuries in District Hospital on the same day at 1-00 P. M. and an intimation was sent to P. S. Kotwali. After receipt of the information, P. W. 6 S. I. Vijai Singh reached the hospital and prepared inquest report and other relevant papers for autopsy. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 Dr. V. K. Gupta conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vir Pal on the same day at 4-50 P. M. and found the following ante-mortem injuries :- 1. Multipal firearm wound of entry on the upper part of left forearm and elbow bone in an area of 8. 0 x 4. 0 cm x skin to muscle deep. Each 0. 3 cm x 0. 3 cm. Direction from left to right and forward. 2. Multiple firearm wound of entry on the left lower part of chest and upper part of abdomen left side in an area of 8. 0 x 6. 0 cm muscle to cavity deep 9. 0 cm above the left iliac crest each measuring 0. 3 x 0. 3 cm. Direction left to right and forward. 3. Firearm wound of entry on the right back of right side 2. 0 cm from the right iliac crest. Size 2. 5 cm x 2. 0 cm x cavity deep. Direction from right to left, forward and upward. Margins of all wounds are inverted and lacerated. ( 11 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Gupta, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries. ( 12 ) ON 1. 7. 2000, the case was altered under Section 302 I. P. C. and P. W. 3 S. I. Rajendra Singh Yadav, the then S. O. , took up the investigation. During investigation, he arrested accused Vijay Kumar @ Kalloo on 6. 7. 2000 and at his pointing out recovered Tamancha in question. After completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet. 7. 2000, the case was altered under Section 302 I. P. C. and P. W. 3 S. I. Rajendra Singh Yadav, the then S. O. , took up the investigation. During investigation, he arrested accused Vijay Kumar @ Kalloo on 6. 7. 2000 and at his pointing out recovered Tamancha in question. After completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet. ( 13 ) AFTER committal of the case to the court of Session, Vijay Kumar was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code on 9. 11. 2000 to which he pleaded not guilty. ( 14 ) IN order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Smt. Premwati, who is wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant. She claimed herself to be an eyewitness. P. W. 2 Dr. V. K. Gupta who conducted autopsy and opined that death was caused on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. P. W. 3 Rajendra Singh Yadav is the second I. O. of the case. P. W. 4 S. I. Aditya Prakash is the first I. O. of the case. P. W. 5 Dr. N. K. Mishra was posted as Emergency Medical Officer, examined the injuries of Vir Pal at District Hospital and proved injury report. P. W. 6 S. I. Vijai Singh prepared inquest report and other papers. ( 15 ) ACCUSED Vijay Kumar in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. totally denied all accusations levelled against him and pleaded that he was falsely implicated. According to him, some altercation and exchange of hot words took place between him and his brother Sudesh. During scuffle, his brother Sudesh took out a pistol and his father sustained injuries as a result of accidental fire. No evidence was led in defence. ( 16 ) AFTER close scrutiny and analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary led by the prosecution and taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties, learned trial Judge found that prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond all shadow of doubt. The accused was, therefore, found guilty and sentenced as mentioned above. ( 17 ) WE have heard Sri N. I. Jafri, Advocate, who was appointed Amicus Curiae for the appellant vide order of the Court dated 14. 2. The accused was, therefore, found guilty and sentenced as mentioned above. ( 17 ) WE have heard Sri N. I. Jafri, Advocate, who was appointed Amicus Curiae for the appellant vide order of the Court dated 14. 2. 2007 and learn ed A. G. A. for the State. We have gone through the entire record also. ( 18 ) LEARNED Amicus Curiae has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that death of Vir Pal was caused as a result of accidental fire and there was altercation between two brothers and actually there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill his own father. He further submitted that as per prosecution version contained in the written report, two brothers of the appellant namely, Sudesh and Avadesh were standing there and saw the incident also. However, they did not go to the Police station to lodge FIR and Smt. Premwati, who is mother of the appellant, went there and lodged FIR. It was further contended that no independent witness of the locality appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution version though the incident took place in broad day light at about 10-00 A. M. The appellant is son of the deceased and as such, there was no question of killing his own father. ( 19 ) ON the other hand, learned A. G. A. has fully supported the impugned judgment and has urged that it was the appellant and none else who killed his father at his house in broad day light and that too in the presence of his mother and brothers. It was further submitted that prosecution did not examine brothers of the appellant. It will not be out of place to mention that our Evidence Act does not insist on plurality of the witnesses. The thrust is on the quality of evidence and not on the quantity. Therefore, the court below committed no error in placing reliance on the solitary testimony of the wife of the deceased, who was present there at the time of incident and conviction has to be confirmed. ( 20 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the matter and all submissions made on behalf of the parties. We have scanned the oral and documentary evidence also with great care and caution. ( 20 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the matter and all submissions made on behalf of the parties. We have scanned the oral and documentary evidence also with great care and caution. ( 21 ) AS noted above, in the instant case, the prosecution examined Smt. Premwati, who is wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant, only as an eyewitness. She is first informant also. She testified in very clear words that on 30. 6. 2000, some altercation took place between his son Vijay Kumar on one hand and her husband on the other regarding partition. According to her, the appellant lost temper and fired two shots at his father with a Tamancha. She and her two sons Sudesh and Aadesh raised hue and cry which attracted a number of villagers. However, the appellant succeeded in running away along with Tamancha. ( 22 ) THE lady reported the incident in writing to the local Police and a case was registered under Section 307 I. P. C. at 10-30 A. M. The distance being five kilometers between the place of occurrence and Police station, the lady reached the Police station on a Jeep and carried her husband also who was ultimately taken to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur and Vir Pal succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Smt. Premwati was cross-examined but learned defence counsel failed to elicit from her testimony that she was actually not present there at the time of alleged incident. It was urged that Smt. Premwati admitted that the appellant supported his wife and her other two sons supported her in the course of altercation between her and the appellants wife. Smt. Premwati gave out in clear words that she had cordial relations with her daughter-in-law. Some time altercation took place. It means, the lady was having normal relation with her daughter-in-law. Smt. Premwati denied the suggestion put to her by the defence that on the impugned date, some altercation took place between the appellant and his brother Sudesh and the appellant took out a Tamancha during scuffle and as a result of scuffle, accidental fire took place causing fatal injuries to Vir Pal. Thus, it is quite obvious from the suggestion given to the lady that the appellant admitted the possession of a country made pistol at the time of alleged incident. Thus, it is quite obvious from the suggestion given to the lady that the appellant admitted the possession of a country made pistol at the time of alleged incident. He further admitted indirectly that his father was killed as a result of accidental fire during scuffle. Contrary to this, the appellant disclosed in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that it was Sudesh who took out Tamancha. Thus, we find that the appellant took two contradictory stands during trial in the court below. ( 23 ) SO far as examination of brothers of the appellant and other witnesses is concerned, we are clearly of the view that their non-production in the witness box is not at all fatal. Had Sudesh and Aadesh been produced in the court as a prosecution witnesses, they could be termed as interested and partisan witnesses being sons of the deceased and informant. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution rightly chose not to examine any of them. So far as the examination of independent witnesses is concerned, the villagers admittedly reached there after hearing hue and cry raised by the members of the family. It means, villagers had no opportunity to see as to who actually fired at Vir Pal. Moreover, as mentioned above, Section 134 Evidence Act does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove any fact. In other words, Section 134 gives green signal to the courts to convict an accused on the basis of solitary testimony of a witness provided his testimony is found to be reliable, convincing and aboveboard. In the instant case, the lady being wife of the deceased was a natural witness and trial Judge rightly placed reliance on her testimony. ( 24 ) MOREOVER, she is natural mother of the appellant. She has deposed against her son. No mother by any stretch of imagination would falsely implicate her own son without any solid motive/reason. There will be hardly any family in the Country where minor disputes regarding partition etc. do not occur. Such minor disputes cannot be said as motive for the mother to falsely implicate her own son. The vice versa may not be true. ( 25 ) SO far as other aspect of the case is concerned, we find that the incident was reported promptly and FIR was lodged within an hour of the incident. do not occur. Such minor disputes cannot be said as motive for the mother to falsely implicate her own son. The vice versa may not be true. ( 25 ) SO far as other aspect of the case is concerned, we find that the incident was reported promptly and FIR was lodged within an hour of the incident. The injuries were also examined without any delay and Dr. Mishra found two gun shot wounds of entry and one exit wound. The appellant repeated the fires and he fired two shots at his own father. He had no sympathy and displayed no mercy on his father at the time of incident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that learned Judge rightly concluded that the offence committed by the appellant would fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304 I. P. C. The injuries were on vital parts of the body. ( 26 ) AFTER analyzing the evidence on record led by the prosecution in detail and considering all aspects of the case, including relationship of Smt. Premwati with the deceased and the appellant, prompt FIR and prompt medical examination of the deceased also, we are wholly inclined to confirm the conviction of the appellant and are clearly of the opinion that this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. ( 27 ) THE appeal filed by Vijay Kumar @ Kalloo Singh fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him are confirmed. ( 28 ) THE appellant is in Jail. Certify a copy of this judgment to C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur as well as to the court below for information and necessary compliance. Compliance report shall be submitted to this Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the lower court record and copy of the judgment. .