Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by IVth Additional sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S. T. No. 45/99 decided on 13. 06. 2000. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 302 of ipc for committing murder of Uttam Singh S/o Rajaram Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for two years, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 18. 11. 98 about 5:00 P. M. , when complainant Ramkaran Singh was coming to choubey Colony via Narsingh Temple Road, alongwith one indra Bahadur Singh, he saw that his brother Uttam Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was also going towards choubey colony on his bicycle. At this juncture, appellant nazmi, co-accused Idreesh and Raju Awasti came on a scooter and intercepted the deceased on the road in front of the house of Bank Manager; appellant Nazmi then pointed a twelve-bore katta on the chest of deceased, saying that he wanted vacation of the quarter by Suman Jain and now his quarter would be vacated. Thereafter, appellant fired a twelve bore katta on the deceased, as a result of which he fell down on the spot. Appellant Nazmi then turned and searched for complainant Ramkaran and Indra Bahadur Singh in order to assault them. They fled away from the spot out of fear. After sometime when complainant Ramkaran came back on the place of occurrence, he found that the cycle and other articles belonging to his brother Uttam Singh were lying there and his brother had been taken to the hospital. Complainant ramkaran then went to the hospital and found that his brother Uttam Singh was lying dead on the stretcher in front of the operation theatre. ( 4. ) THE FIR of the incident was lodged by complainant ramkaran at Police station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and other co-accused persons and was investigated. Merg intimation was also recorded same evening, on the intimation of death given to the Police by hospital authorities and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased uttam Singh was sent for postmortem examination. Blood stained and plain earth were seized from the spot. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized. Spot map was prepared. Merg intimation was also recorded same evening, on the intimation of death given to the Police by hospital authorities and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased uttam Singh was sent for postmortem examination. Blood stained and plain earth were seized from the spot. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized. Spot map was prepared. During investigation a twelve bore katta was seized from the possession of the appellant. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellants and three other co-accused persons were prosecuted under Section 302/34 and 109 of IPC, 25/27 of Arms Act and were put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANT and the other co-accused persons denied the various charges framed against them and pleaded false implication. ( 6. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case acquitted the co-accused persons and also acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 25 (1b) (a), 27 of the arms Act, but found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of ipc for committing murder of Uttam Singh and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 7. ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial judge did not appreciate the evidence properly and erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of Ramkaran (P. W-1) and failed to consider that he was not present on the scene of occurrence and was a cooked up witness. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 10. ) WE have gone through the evidence on record. ( 11. ) P. W-1 Ramkaran, who is the brother of the deceased, is the main eyewitness and the FIR of the incident (Ex. P-1) was also lodged by him on the same day. ( 10. ) WE have gone through the evidence on record. ( 11. ) P. W-1 Ramkaran, who is the brother of the deceased, is the main eyewitness and the FIR of the incident (Ex. P-1) was also lodged by him on the same day. P. W-1 ramkaran categorically deposed in his evidence that about 5 oclock in the evening when he was coming back to his house from the post office and reached near Narsingh temple located in the vicinity of his house, he noticed that his brother uttam Singh was coming on bicycle from the house and was followed by a scooter driven by co-accused Raju, appellant nazmi and the other co-accused sitting on the back seat. According to Ramkaran (P. W-1), appellant got down from the scooter, interrupted his brother Uttam Singh and abused him saying that he was trying to get the room vacated by Suman jain, which would be done forever and thereafter appellant took out a katta (revolver) and fired at his brother Uttam singh. Complainant Ramkaran and his companion got frightened and fled away from the spot; when he came back after sometime, he found that things of his brother were lying on the road and his brother Uttam Singh was taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, he saw that his brother uttam Singh was lying dead. He then went to the Police station Civil Lines and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1), which was recorded by Town Inspector Ajab Singh Bhadoriya (P. W-5) of police Station Civil Lines on 18. 11. 98 itself. ( 12. ) THE evidence of complainant Ramkaran (P. W-1)also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. B. M. Chourasiya (P. W-2), who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased on 19. 11. 98, found following ante mortem injury on the dead body of deceased:-3 cm x 2 cm x thoracic cavity deep lacerated wound with lacerated margins over right chest inferomedially 4. 5 cm away from right arota, margins and surroundings black, directing medially downward. ( 13. 11. 98, found following ante mortem injury on the dead body of deceased:-3 cm x 2 cm x thoracic cavity deep lacerated wound with lacerated margins over right chest inferomedially 4. 5 cm away from right arota, margins and surroundings black, directing medially downward. ( 13. ) UPON internal postmortem examination of the deceased, a wound of 7cm x 5cm on the right side of the chest was found and corresponding muscles were lacerated and torn off, corresponding part of 4th, 5th and 6th ribs were fractured in pieces; corresponding organs to the wound as medial part of right lung and posterior aspect of heart torn off badly. A plastic body with mark LA6 and fifteen iron pellets were also removed from thoracic cavity embeded in injured organ. ( 14. ) IN the opinion of Dr. B. M. Chourasiya (P. W-2), injuries were caused by some firearm and death was caused due to excessive hemorrhage from the wound and injury to vital organ like heart and lungs within 12 to 24 hours of the postmortem examination. His postmortem report (Ex. P-6) is also placed on record. There are no cogent reasons to discard the aforesaid medical evidence. ( 15. ) LIKEWISE, there are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of the eyewitness Ramkaran (P. W-1) to the effect that appellant Nazmi had fired a katta at his brother uttam Singh and shot him. Although P. W-1 Ramkaran was cross-examined in extenso, but nothing substantial has been elicited in his evidence so as to doubt his presence on the place of occurrence or to discard his statement that appellant had shot at the deceased. The mere fact that P. W-1 ramkaran, as suggested, had a criminal background, cannot be a valid reason to discard the eyewitness account of the incident given by him. Similarly, his evidence cannot be rejected for the reason that his companion Indra Bahadur singh has been examined in defence as D. W-1. Although, d. W-1 Indra Bahadur Singh has tried to nullify the presence of P. W-1 Ramkaran on the place of occurrence, as well as his entire evidence, but the trial court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of D. W-1 Indra Bahadur for cogent reasons. Although, d. W-1 Indra Bahadur Singh has tried to nullify the presence of P. W-1 Ramkaran on the place of occurrence, as well as his entire evidence, but the trial court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of D. W-1 Indra Bahadur for cogent reasons. The fact that Indra Bahadur Singh (D. W-1), who was cited as a prosecution witness and given up by the prosecution, has been examined in defence, is sufficient to indicate that this witness was won over by the defence. ( 16. ) BE that as it may, the evidence of P. W-1 ramkaran does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to reject his testimony on the point that he had seen the appellant firing katta at the deceased. The trial court has given detailed and cogent reasons for placing reliance on the testimony of P. W-1 Ramkaran. No doubt, P. W-1 Ramkaran is the real brother of the deceased, but his evidence cannot be rejected on that count, particularly when it is found reliable so far as the act of the appellant Najmi is concerned. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Pulicherla nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra pradesh reported in 2006 AIR SCW page 4143 the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. ( 17. ) THE evidence of P. W-1 Ramkaran also could not be discarded for want of corroboration, particularly when it stood corroborated by the medical evidence in as much as ante mortem injury caused by firearm was found by dr. B. M. Chourasiya (P. W-2) on the dead body of deceased. More so, there is no rule of law that the sole testimony of a witness cannot be accepted without corroboration, if it is found to be truthful and trustworthy. ( 18. ) THE statement of P. W-1 Ramkaran, that the appellant had fired a katta on the deceased, also stands substantially corroborated from the FIR (Ex. P-1) lodged by complainant Ramkaran (P. W-1) same day shortly after the occurrence. There are no reasons to suspect as submitted, that the FIR was anti dated or anti timed or appellant was falsely implicated. ) THE statement of P. W-1 Ramkaran, that the appellant had fired a katta on the deceased, also stands substantially corroborated from the FIR (Ex. P-1) lodged by complainant Ramkaran (P. W-1) same day shortly after the occurrence. There are no reasons to suspect as submitted, that the FIR was anti dated or anti timed or appellant was falsely implicated. Rather it transpires from the evidence of investigating Officer Ajab Singh Bhadoriya (P. W-5) that copy of the FIR (Ex. P-1) was also sent to the concerned Judicial magistrate and compliance of Section 157 of Cr. P. C. was made. Though some delay of about one day in receiving the copy of FIR by concerned Judicial Magistrate has been noted by the trial court , but such delay cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution, particularly when the investigation was started early in the morning at 7 oclock on 19. 11. 98 itself by Investigating Officer Ajab Singh Bhadoriya (P. W.-5 ). ( 19. ) IN fact, upon due consideration of the entire evidence placed on record, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of ipc for intentionally causing death of Uttam Singh. ( 20. ) THUS, we find no merit in this appeal. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant and the life sentence plus fine of Rs. 1,000/-awarded to him under section 302 of IPC. Appeal fails and is dismissed.