S.C. Das, J.— 1. The appellant, named above, was found guilty of committing offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') on a charge framed against her by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Sessions Trial Case No.47(WT/A)2001, and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000, in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for six months. Having been aggrieved with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC'). 2. Heard learned amicus curiae, Mrs. N. Guha for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent. 3. Fact of the case may be summarized, thus : 3.1. In the year 2000, Satyanarayan Mourya, with his wife Malati Dcbi (deceased victim) and his son (PW9, Jyoti Prakash Mourya) and daughters (PW1, Gita Mourya and others) used to reside as a tenant in a rented house at Kunjaban Colony, Agartala near Circuit House, belonged to Santanu Nag (PW8). The accused Ratna Ghosh was engaged as maidservant to work in the house. On 3.8.2000, at about 0900/0910 hrs., in the morning, PW1 (Gita Mourya) was in the kitchen room and was engaged in preparing food. Malati Debi, mother of Gita, was in her bedroom lying on the bed. Accused Ratna Ghosh and her daughter were in the house and accused Ratna was working and her daughter was in the bathroom of the house. None else was present in the house. Satyanarayan, husband of Malati and father of Gita, was away from the house to escort PW9 to his school bus. Suddenly, Gita heard cries, raised by her mother and she rushed to the bedroom and found Ratna set her mother to fire pouring kerosene oil to her body. She, immediately, entered in the bathroom to bring water but, in the meantime, Ratna locked the door of bedroom and with her daughter was going away. Gita (PW1) raised high alarm and chased behind Ratna, to which she went away after throwing the key of door lock. With the key Gita rushed to the bedroom, opened the door and found her mother sustained severe burn injury all over the body from neck to feet. Hearing her alarm, neighbourers came and shifted Malati Debi to G.B. Hospital. Gita (PW1) raised high alarm and chased behind Ratna, to which she went away after throwing the key of door lock. With the key Gita rushed to the bedroom, opened the door and found her mother sustained severe burn injury all over the body from neck to feet. Hearing her alarm, neighbourers came and shifted Malati Debi to G.B. Hospital. 3.2 Prosecution brought further story on record that Satyanarayan was working as Assistant Engineer in Indian Railways and, initially, in the year 1997-98, he along with others had been residing in a rented house at Gurkhabasti, belonged to Shyamal Bhattacharjee (PW2). Ratna Ghosh used to work as a maidservant in the mess of railway employees residing in that house. When the mess was separated, Ratna was engaged as the maidservant of Satyanarayan. It is the case of the prosecution that Ratna developed intimacy with Satyanarayan and, therefore, Shyamal Bhattacharjee (PW2) asked Ratna not to visit his house and Satyanarayan was also asked by him to disengage Ratna. Thereafter, Satyanarayan shifted from Gurkhabasti to Kunjaban Colony in the rented house of PW8. 3.3. It is the further case of the prosecution that about 2/3 days prior to the incident, Ratna had a quarrel with Malati Debi and at that time Malati Debi cautioned her and asked her to leave the residence. On the date of occurrence, Ratna was supposed to leave the job of maidservant. 3.4. On 3.8.2000 itself, at about 1420 hrs., PW1, Gita Mourya submitted a written FIR, written by herself in Hindi at G.B. Hospital, to Prava Ranjan Choudhury (PW10), S1 of Police of East Agartala PS and, on the basis of that FIR, East Agartala PS Case No. 140/2000 under sections 326/327 of IPC was registered and SI Prabha Ranjan Choudhury was entrusted with the charge of investigation. In course of investigation, SI Sri Choudhury visited the house of Satyanarayan Choudhury, where the incident occurred and seized pieces of burnt 'saree', which Malati Debi was wearing at the time of occurrence, one steel bowl which was used in throwing kerosene oil by accused Ratna on the body of Malati and a matchbox, which was used in igniting fire. He also prepared a hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence with separate index. He recorded the statements of the material witnesses. Malati Debi suffered 80% burn injury and died on 8.8.2000. He also prepared a hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence with separate index. He recorded the statements of the material witnesses. Malati Debi suffered 80% burn injury and died on 8.8.2000. Inquest report was prepared over the dead body by SI Nitish Ch. Dey (PW3) and, thereafter, the dead body was forwarded with a requisition for post mortem examination and, accordingly, post mortem examination was done over the dead body by autopsy surgeon, Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das (PW7). On completion of investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against accused Ratna Ghosh under sections 302/201 of IPC and against Satyanarayan Mourya under section 302/201/120B of IPC. 3.5. Based on the charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and, on commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Ratna Ghosh for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and a separate charge was also framed against Satyanarayan Mourya and Ratna Ghosh under section 120B of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. 3.6. In course of trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses. PW1 is the star witness, of the prosecution and is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. PW9 is the younger brother of PW1. PW2 is the landlord, where the accused Satyanarayan Mourya along with other railways employees used to reside at Gurkhabasti, Agartala and PW8 is another landlord, in whose house the incident occurred, where the accused Satyanarayan Mourya with his family was residing. PW3 is a police officer, who prepared the inquest report over the dead body. PW4 is another police officer, who registered the case on receipt of the FIR. PW5 is a Deputy Chief Engineer of Railways and he also resided with the accused Satyanarayan Mourya in the railway mess at Gurkhabasti in the house of PW2. PW6 is the younger brother of accused Satyanarayan Mourya who, on receipt of the information about the occurrence, came to Agartala and had taken the witnesses to their house at Banarash, Uttar Pradesh. PW7 is the medical officer, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body. PW9 is the son of the deceased and accused Satyanarayan. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. 3.7. PW7 is the medical officer, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body. PW9 is the son of the deceased and accused Satyanarayan. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. 3.7. In course of prosecution evidence, prosecution also proved the FIR, marked as Ext.l, inquest report, marked as Ext.2, post mortem examination report, marked as Ext.3, seizure list of burnt 'saree', etc., marked as Ext.4 and the seized articles, marked as Ext.MO.l series. 3.8. Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.PC. In her turn, on being asked, the accused declined to adduce defence evidence. Defence case, so far ascertained form the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statement of the accused made while examination under section 313 of Cr.PC is that of denial of the allegation. It was further stated by the accused that she was innocent and that the deceased Malati Debi committed suicide by setting fire to herself. 3.9 Learned Sessions Judge, at the conclusion of trial, acquitted accused Satyanarayan Mourya from the charge and convicted the accused appellant Ratna Ghosh under section 302 of IPC and sentenced her as aforesaid. 4. Death of Malati Debi because of eighty per cent burn injury is not in dispute. PW7 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Malati Debi and in his deposition, the witness stated that he found anti-mortem epidermal and dermo-epidermal burn whole.over the body except head, face and part of the anterior abdominal wall, constituting eighty per cent burn. Ruptured blisters were present over different parts of the body (burn area) and bordered by red hyperemic skin. Some parts of burn area show central zone of necrotic tissues surrounded by zone of hyperemia singeing of hairs, axillary and public present. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock, as a result of eighty per cent burn injury. The cause of death has not been disputed. At the time of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused appellant, suggestions were put forward that deceased Malati Debi committed suicide setting herself to fire. In her examination under section 313 of Cr.PC she pleaded innocence and further stated that the deceased committed suicide. 5. The first argument advanced by learned amicus curiae, Mrs. Guha, is that PW1 might not have seen the occurrence. In her examination under section 313 of Cr.PC she pleaded innocence and further stated that the deceased committed suicide. 5. The first argument advanced by learned amicus curiae, Mrs. Guha, is that PW1 might not have seen the occurrence. She might be present in the house at the time of occurrence but it was unnatural for her to see the occurrence and based on her sole evidence it was not proper for the learned Sessions Judge to convict the accused on a charge of murder. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Ghosh has submitted that PW1 was only present in the house at the time of occurrence, apart from the deceased and accused Ratna and her minor daughter. She was working in the kitchen and hearing the alarm raised by her mother she rushed to the bedroom and found accused Ratna was igniting fire in a matchstick, pouring kerosene oil on her mother. This evidence of PW1 has not been shaken and there is no room to doubt the evidence of PW1 and, so, the trial court has rightly relied on the evidence of PW1 (Gita) and held the accused guilty of the.charge. 6. We have meticulously gone through the evidence and materials on record. 6.1. According to the prosecution, accused Ratna was engaged as maidservant in the mess of railway employees at Gurkhabasti in the house of PW2. On going through the evidence of PW2, we find that he made very clear statement that Ratna Ghosh, the accused, a divorcee, was engaged as a maidservant by the accused Satyanarayan Mourya while he was residing in one of the rooms hired by the railway employees in his house. On one occasion, he found Ratna was sitting on the cot of accused Satyanarayan side by side putting her hand on the back of Satyanarayan Mourya. He, thereafter, cautioned Satyanarayan and also asked Ratna not to enter in his house in future. He stated that, thereafter, Satyanarayan left his house and started living in another rented house at Kunjaban colony. On one occasion, he found Ratna was sitting on the cot of accused Satyanarayan side by side putting her hand on the back of Satyanarayan Mourya. He, thereafter, cautioned Satyanarayan and also asked Ratna not to enter in his house in future. He stated that, thereafter, Satyanarayan left his house and started living in another rented house at Kunjaban colony. The witness also stated that when Satyanarayan was residing in his house, his wife and children used to occasionally visit the house from Lumding and, therefore, wife of Satyanarayan was known to him and she (wife of Satyanarayan) sometimes had spoken to him over telephone to which he informed her that Satyanarayan left his house for a rented house near Circuit House. Except denial, there is nothing in the cross-examination of PW2. 6.2. PW5 was a Deputy Chief Engineer of railways at the relevant time and he also resided in one room in the rented house of railway at Gurkhabasti (house of PW2) along with accused Satyanarayan and he stated that Ratna was engaged as a maidservant to prepare food of Satyanarayan and she used to come twice a day to prepare food. His evidence that Ratna was engaged as maidservant by accused Satyanarayan has not been shaken in any manner. 6.3. PW9, the son of Satyanarayan and deceased Malati Debi, also stated that Ratna was the maidservant working in their house and she set fire to his mother. 6.4. PW1 and her mother (deceased) were in the house at the time of occurrence. Besides them, Ratna and her minor daughter were in the house. PW1 stated that she was cooking in the kitchen. It was a five room's house, compact with kitchen, dining, bedroom and bathroom. Accused Satyanarayan went out to escort PW9 to school bus. Suddenly, she heard alarm of her mother and rushed to the bedroom and found Ratna was igniting fire to her mother after pouring kerosene oil with a matchstick and her mother was flaming. Immediately, she went to the bathroom to fetch water. In the meantime, Ratna locked the bedroom and went out. She raised high alarm and chased behind Ratna to which Ratna threw the key of the lock and went away with her daughter. She came back, opened the bedroom and found her mother with severe burn injury from neck to feet. Neighbourers had shifted her mother to hospital. In the meantime, Ratna locked the bedroom and went out. She raised high alarm and chased behind Ratna to which Ratna threw the key of the lock and went away with her daughter. She came back, opened the bedroom and found her mother with severe burn injury from neck to feet. Neighbourers had shifted her mother to hospital. Her father returned home after about fifteen minutes and along with her father she went to hospital. Her mother died on 8.8.2000. This material evidence of PW1 has not been shaken in any manner in the cross-examination. Except denial, there is nothing else. The accused suggested that Malati Debi committed suicide setting herself to fire. 6.5 PW1 made a vivid statement and she also proved the FIR lodged by her within five hours of occurrence. The FIR was not in details but it was clearly mentioned in the FIR that the accused Ratna Ghosh set Malati Debi to fire after pouring kerosene oil to her body. The witness elaborated the entire fact in her deposition before Court. An FIR is an information, first in point of time and need not be in details. While the deposition of PW1 has remained intact and not destroyed in cross-examination, or otherwise by adducing evidence, we find nothing to arrive at a contrary finding to that of the finding arrived by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of appreciation of the evidence of PW1. A sole witness, if reliable in a given facts and circumstances of a case, may be sufficient to record a conviction. Law does not prescribe that to prove a fact a particular number of witnesses are to be examined. It is the quality of the evidence, which is required to be looked into and not the quantity. PW1 was the only person present in the house when the incident occurred. After the incident, accused Ratna went away with her minor daughter. Had Malati Debi committed suicide, Ratna would not leave the house rather would remain present in the house and help Gita (PW1) to put out the fire. We find nothing to doubt the evidence of PW1 in the facts and circumstances of the case and, in our considered opinion, the trial court has rightly relied on the evidence of PW1. 7. The next argument advanced by learned amicus curiae, Mrs. We find nothing to doubt the evidence of PW1 in the facts and circumstances of the case and, in our considered opinion, the trial court has rightly relied on the evidence of PW1. 7. The next argument advanced by learned amicus curiae, Mrs. Guha is that the burnt clothes of the deceased have not been chemically examined to ascertain that kerosene oil was actually poured on her body before she was put to fire and, therefore, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that where the evidence of eye witness is cogent other opinion evidence is not at all important. 7.1 It is an admitted fact that the deceased died due to burn injury. Prosecution case is that she was set to fire after pouring kerosene oil by the accused appellant. It was, therefore, the duty of the I.O. to ascertain as to whether kerosene was actually poured or not while setting the deceased to fire. I.O. has failed to do so. No reason also assigned for not doing so. No cross-examination was also done to that effect as to why such chemical examination was not done. Had the clothes chemically been examined, we would have got the opinion evidence, which would lend further assurance to the evidence of eye witness. Where the evidence of the eye witness is reliable and has not been shaken or destroyed in any manner, we find little importance of any other opinion evidence, especially, in cases, where the cause of death due to burning has not been disputed. 7.2 It is the settled principle of law that opinion evidence cannot override the ocular evidence if ocular evidence is found to be worthy of credit and not shaken or destroyed otherwise. We, therefore, find no force in the argument advanced by learned amicus curiae. 7.3. In the case of Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , the Supreme Court has held that in a criminal trial credible evidence of a solitary witness can form the basis of conviction. In the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v. The State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161 , the Apex Court has held that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. In the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v. The State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161 , the Apex Court has held that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. We may gainfully rely on the above decisions of the Apex Court. 8. The next argument advanced by learned amicus curiae is that PW1 is an interested witness and, therefore, her sole evidence should not be relied on learned Addl. P.P., on the contrary, has submitted that PW1 is the sole eye witness of the occurrence and was present in the house in a natural course and she cannot be termed as an 'interested witness'. We have considered the rival submission of learned counsel of both sides. The term, "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person in somehow or otherwise convicted either because of animosity or for some other reasons. The word, "related" is not equivalent to "interested". PW1 is the daughter of the deceased and in a natural course she was present in her own house and since the incident occurred inside the house she was the witness to the occurrence in ordinary natural course. She, therefore, cannot be termed as an "interested witness". There is nothing on record that she, somehow or the other, wanted to see the accused to be punished in any manner. The Apex Court in the case of Thoti Manohar v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, AIR 2012 SCW 3752, while appreciating the evidence of a family member, in paragraph 24 of the judgment observed, thus : "24. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that all the witnesses, being relatives, are interested witnesses. The occurrence in part took place inside the house and the rest of it slightly outside the premises of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the family members and the close relatives are bound to be the natural witnesses. They intervened and sustained injuries. Their sustaining of injuries has got support from the ocular evidence as well as the medical evidence. The same has been dislodged and if we allow ourselves to say so, not even a fragile attempt has been made to dislodge the same. They intervened and sustained injuries. Their sustaining of injuries has got support from the ocular evidence as well as the medical evidence. The same has been dislodged and if we allow ourselves to say so, not even a fragile attempt has been made to dislodge the same. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that they are chance witnesses. In the obtaining factual matrix, they are the most natural witnesses. In this context, we may refer with profit the decision of this court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , wherein Vivian Bose, J, speaking for the Court, observed as follows : "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. The State of Rqiqstha?, (1952) SCR 377 at p. 390 : (AIR 1952 SC54 at p. 59)." In the said case, it was further observed that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate.an innocent person. It is true that when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty,.but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth." 9. In the result, we find nothing to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of the charge framed against the accused. In the result, we find nothing to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of the charge framed against the accused. We, therefore, have no hesitation to uphold the judgment and'order of conviction and sentence and the appeal, accordingly, sands dismissed. 10. We do not forget to record our appreciation in respect of the services rendered by learned amicus curiae, Mrs. Guha and she should be paid fees for conducting the case as per Legal Remembrance's Manual. 11. Send back the LC records along with a copy of judgment. _____________