Judgment SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA JJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against judgment and order dated 11.07.2002 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2001/ 84 of 2001. 2. By the said judgment and order, after trial, the sole accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence under sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 27 of the Arms Act. For the charge under sec. 302 I.P.C. he has been awarded life imprisonment, for the charge under sec. 307 I.P.C. he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years and for the charge under the Arms Act he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the Fardbeyan of Ram Sundar Mahto, P.W.3 recorded on 6.12.2000 at 16.15 hrs. at village Parmanandpur under Dumra P.S. in the district of sitamarhi, where the occurrence took place. According to the Fardbeyan on 6.12.2000 at about. 15.00 hrs when the informant had taken out his cycle for going to Dumra and was talking to his wife (P.W.5), who was standing in the Angan (court-yard), at that time his nephew Dilip Kumar Mahto, the appellant who was wearing Dhoti and Kurta and had wrapped himself in a sheet arrived there. On arrival he enquired about the general welfare and further enquired whether his wife had come there or not. On this the wife of the informant conveyed that all was well and wife of the appellant had not come there. In no time, the appellant who was presently residing in village Punaura took out a pistol from his pocket and fired at the informant. The shot caused injury on his face towards the right side on the forehead and near the eyes. The wife of the informant raised hue and cry. After firing at the informant the appellant went out of the court-yard and proceeded straight to the Khalihan where appellants father was looking after the harvested paddy crops. With the same pistol the appellant fired on the neck of his father from point blank range and as a result the father of the appellant and brother of the informant met instant death at the spot. On hearing the hues and cries several villagers assembled there and the appellant fled away. With the same pistol the appellant fired on the neck of his father from point blank range and as a result the father of the appellant and brother of the informant met instant death at the spot. On hearing the hues and cries several villagers assembled there and the appellant fled away. The reason of the occurrence was attributed to abnormal cruel behaviour of the appellant. 4. The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tej Narayan Vishwas, who inspected the place of occurrence near the Courtyard of the informant as well as at the Khalihan, seized blood stained paddy straws from the Khalihan as per seizure list ( Ext.-4). He also prepared the inquest report (Ext.-3) in respect of the dead body of the deceased. After examining the witnesses and concluding investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellant leading to cognizance. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and was therefore subjected to trial which ended in his conviction and he was sentenced for various charges, as noticed above. 5. The defence of the appellant is simply a general denial of his involvement and the suggestion to the witnesses is only that they have deposed falsely. In course of arguments it was submitted that the claim of the informant regarding assault by the appellant on him stands corroborated by the eye witness account relating to that part of the occurrence as given by Malika Devi, P.W.5, but the evidence of the informant, Ram Sundar Mahto that he saw the assault by the appellant on the deceased should not be believed and accepted in absence of any corroboration from a reliable witness. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether nine witnesses. P.W.l, Anil Kumar, is a co-villager who has claimed to have only heard from people who had assembled near the dead body of Asharfi Mahto that he had been killed by the appellant who had run away. Clearly he is not an eye witness of the occurrence. 7. P.W.2, Dr. Shiv Kumar Thakur held autopsy on the dead body of Asharfi Mahto, the deceased on 7.12.2000 at 12.40 hrs. The post mortem report has been proved as Exhibit-1. Clearly he is not an eye witness of the occurrence. 7. P.W.2, Dr. Shiv Kumar Thakur held autopsy on the dead body of Asharfi Mahto, the deceased on 7.12.2000 at 12.40 hrs. The post mortem report has been proved as Exhibit-1. The medical evidence shows a charred fire arm injury on the neck of the deceased apparently from a close range and the death was within twenty four hours of the post mortem examination. There is no difficulty in holding that the medical evidence fully corroborates and supports the prosecution case. 8. P.W.3, Ram Sundar Mahto, is the informant, who undisputedly received injuries in the earlier part of the occurrence. His injuries were examined by P.W.9, Dr. Narendra Kishore Singh, who has proved the injury report as Exhibit-5. The report shows that the P.W.3 had received fire arm injury on his face, but the injury was simple in nature and it had been caused from a distance. Thus, the presence of P.W.3 at the time of occurrence is beyond any doubt. He is the informant who has given the earliest version of the occurrence to the police without delay. Ho is brother of the deceased and uncle of the appellant. In his evidence it has come that there was already a partition amongst his brothers long back and there was no enmity of any kind between the parties. It has further come in his evidence that there was partition and separation even between the appellant and his brother. The appellant was residing usually at his Nanihal ( Maternal Fathers place) and his brother Dinesh used to normally reside with the father (deceased). In view of such admitted partition of properties long back, the claim of P.W. 3 that there was no enmity or dispute between the parties is trustworthy and has not been challenged by production of. any material by the defence to show any enmity. This witness can be safely treated as an independent witness who in normal situation is expected to be more soft towards the appellant, his surviving nephew than towards the deceased, his dead brother. P.W.3 has given account of entire occurrence in the Fardbeyan as an eye witness and he has deposed in Court also accordingly. This witness can be safely treated as an independent witness who in normal situation is expected to be more soft towards the appellant, his surviving nephew than towards the deceased, his dead brother. P.W.3 has given account of entire occurrence in the Fardbeyan as an eye witness and he has deposed in Court also accordingly. In Court he has himself stated that for a brief period he fell down on receiving the injury on his face, but in the same breath he has categorically stated that the appellant ran from that place to the Khalihan and the witness got up and made efforts to catch him and also raised hulla. In the same breath he has further stated that the appellant on reaching the Khalihan shot his father in the neck and that caused instant death. Thereafter the appellant managed to run away. In cross examination at one place he has admitted that by the time he reached at the Khalihan the deceased had breathed his last. On the basis of the admission of this witness that he fell down for a brief period and by the time he reached Khalihan, the deceased had already died, it has been submitted that this witness could not have seen the actual assault upon the deceased and he should not be relied upon as an eye witness of killing of the deceased. 9. On a very careful consideration of all the relevant materials, we find no merit in the aforesaid submission. It is found that P.W.3 is an independent witness who has gathered courage to stick to his earliest version against his nephew, the appellant and his claim of having seen the appellant assaulting the deceased can not be disbelieved on the basis of aforesaid statements of the witnesses, as noticed above. It is pertinent to notice here that there is no suggestion to this witness that he was seriously injured and could not have got up within, few minutes and could not have attempted to catch the appellant. In fact his injuries, as noticed earlier, were simple in nature due to firing made from a distance and only abrasion had been caused on his forehead. In such situation, considering the independent stature of this witness and all other circumstances, we find no good reason to doubt his testimony as an eye witness of the entire occurrence. 10. In fact his injuries, as noticed earlier, were simple in nature due to firing made from a distance and only abrasion had been caused on his forehead. In such situation, considering the independent stature of this witness and all other circumstances, we find no good reason to doubt his testimony as an eye witness of the entire occurrence. 10. P.W.4, Dukha Kumar, has claimed to be hear say witness at least of the first part of the occurrence in which the informant received injuries. From his answers given in cross examination, it appears that he is only a hearsay witness even in respect of the. second occurrence in which the deceased was killed. He can only be treated as a corroborative witness of the fact that soon after the occurrence people at the place of occurrence disclosed the name of the appellant as the assailant of the deceased. 11. P.W.5, Malika Devi, is wife of the informant Ram Sundar Mahto (P.W.3). She has claimed to be an eye witness of the first occurrence relating to injury to the informant. About the second occurrence she has simply claimed to have heard that the appellant had also shot at his father and killed him. To the aforesaid extent this witness is also reliable. 12. P.W.6, Braj Kishore Mandal s P.W.8, Brahmadeo Rai have been simply tendered for cross examination and are, therefore, not of any help to the prosecution. 13. P.W.7, Tej Narayan Vishwas is the Investigating Officer of the case. His evidence in Court is very brief in nature, but since the attention of the witnesses was never drawn to their earlier statement before the I.O., no contradiction has been obtained from him in respect of the statement of witnesses in Court vis-a-vis their statements before the I.O. The I.O. has been cross examined on only one point that the accused had made some kind of statement before the police officers alleging that one Raghunath along with his associates had caused injuries to the informant and death of the deceased. No such defence was taken in course of cross examination of the witnesses. 14. As already noticed P.W.9 is Dr. Narendra Kishore Singh who has proved the injury report of the informant as Exhibit-5. 15. The main argument on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant should not be convicted for the offence under sec. No such defence was taken in course of cross examination of the witnesses. 14. As already noticed P.W.9 is Dr. Narendra Kishore Singh who has proved the injury report of the informant as Exhibit-5. 15. The main argument on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant should not be convicted for the offence under sec. 302 I.P.C. on the basis of sole eye witness account of P.W.3. It is well established in law that what matters for proving a criminal charge is quality of evidence and not the quantity. With this principle in mind, we have already carefully examined the evidence of P.W.3 and we have found him to be independent and reliable. His presence at the time of occurrence is not in question. There is no suggestion given to this witness that he learnt about the occurrence from some other person and he could not have seen the occurrence or did not see the occurrence. In fact the defence did not muster courage to cross examine this witness on the crucial issue as to how far the Khalihan was from the house and court-yard of the informant and whether he could see the place of occurrence where the deceased was shot after coming out of his court-yard or there was any obstruction in the way. No such questions have been put even to the Investigating Officer. 16. Considering all these aspects of the matter and also considering that the medical evidence fully corroborates and supports the eye version given by P.W.3, We find no difficulty in holding that the charge under sec. 302 I.P.C. against the appellant for causing death of his own father also stands proved. We also affirm the conviction of the appellant for the charge under section 307 I.P.C. on account of his having caused fire arm injury to his uncle, the informant. We also confirm the conviction of the appellant under sec. 27 of the Arms Act. So far as sentence is concerned, the appellant has been awarded the minimum sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under sec. 302 I.P.C. and other sentences are to run concurrently. In the facts of the case we find no illegality in the sentences awarded to the appellant so as to warrant our interference. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is found to be without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.