Anurag Kumar, J.;— This is an appeal preferred by Afsar Khan against judgment dated 08.01.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Lakhimpur Kheri in S.T. No. 328/2001, State Versus Afsar Khan under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri, by which, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and on non payment of fine a further imprisonment of one year and six months imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C. 2. The brief matrix of the case is that the complainant Babu Khan on 07.02.2001 at about 8.00 p.m. was returning to his house with his son Span from the shop of Israr after purchasing things of daily use. As they reached in front of house of Afsar Khan, Afsar Khan was standing in front of his house having country made pistol in his hand. He said that you have falsely implicated him in a engine theft case and further he stated that today I will teach a lesson to you in respect of false charges and saying these words he opened fire on the son of complainant with intention to kill him. The son of complainant moved forward, fire hit his back and he fell down. In the mean time, Suleman, Sabir and other villagers reached on the spot, on which, accused ran away from the spot and entered into his house. The complainant took his injured son to Police Station and lodged a written complaint, on which, case was registered as case crime No. 34/2001, under Section 307, 504, 506 at Police Station Mohammadi and injured was sent to C.M.C. Mohammadi Kheri with constable. The injured Ispan Khan was examined by doctor (P.W.-6) A.B.P. Sinha and after examination he prepared injury report (Ex. ka-8). As per injury report, there is one fire arm wound of injury of size 3.5 cm x 3 cm into cavity deep on left side back of chest near vertebral column region 9 cm below the 7 cervical vertebral. The blackening is present. No wound of exist seen. Margins are lacerated, pellets are not palpable. Bleeding is present. X-ray was advised. X-ray of the injured Ispan Khan was taken at District Hospital Lakhimpur Kheri and as per X-ray report (Ex. The blackening is present. No wound of exist seen. Margins are lacerated, pellets are not palpable. Bleeding is present. X-ray was advised. X-ray of the injured Ispan Khan was taken at District Hospital Lakhimpur Kheri and as per X-ray report (Ex. Ka-6) there are multiple small round radio optical foreign body shadows of metallic density seen in right side of chest with collapse of right lung and partially collapse of left lung. He was admitted in the district hospital and later on he was discharged from the hospital and on 23.03.2011 during his treatment he died. Babu Khan (P.W.-1) informed the Police Station on 24.03.2001 by written report (Ex. ka-2), On which, case was altered under Section 302 I.P.C. and on 24.03.2001 inquest report was prepared and post-mortem of deceased Ispan Khan was conducted by Dr. P.K. Ganguli (P.W.- 5) and he prepared post-mortem report (Ex. Ka-7). As per post-mortem report, cause of death is Septicemia as a result of anti mortem septic wound. After investigation, charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-17) was filed against the appellant Afsar Khan, which was proved by I.O. (P.W.-8). 3. The case was committed to the court of Session and on 01.02.2002 charges were framed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, under Sections 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Prosecution examined (P.W.-1) Babu Khan complainant eye witness, (P.W.-2) Suleman Khan eye witness, (P.W.-3) Brahmanand Dwivedi Chauki Incharge, Amir Nagar, Police Station-Mohammadi, (P.W.-4) Dr. R.K. Kanchan, radiologist, (P.W.-5) P.K. Ganguli who has conducted the post-mortem and proved post-mortem report, (P.W.-6) Dr. A.B.P. Sinha, who initially examined injured Ispan Khan and proved his injury report, (P.W.-7) S.I. Siyaram who proved inquest report and other papers, (P.W.-8) S.H.O. Vishwanath Singh Nagar, who after investigation, submitted charge-sheet. In defence accused produced (D.W.-1) Israil Khan. The trial was conducted by Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri and he convicted the accused by his judgment dated 08.08.2003 and sentenced him under Sections 304 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine a further imprisonment of one year and under Section 506 I.P.C. for six months imprisonment. Aggrieved from the said judgment, present appeal was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that there is no reliable evidence against the accused. There are major contradictions in the statement of witnesses. There are no independent witnesses and only interested and chance witnesses were produced. Aggrieved from the said judgment, present appeal was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that there is no reliable evidence against the accused. There are major contradictions in the statement of witnesses. There are no independent witnesses and only interested and chance witnesses were produced. F.I.R. was anti time because in Majroobi Chitthi no crime number was mentioned. As per version of D.W.-1, his shop was closed at 7.00 P.M. and the occurrence was of 8.00 P.M. which was said to be occurred when the deceased was returning with his father from the shop of D.W.-1, incident is of night and there was no source of light, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. In fact, the place of occurrence is somewhere else and due to enmity the accused -appellant was falsely implicated. As per post-mortem report, cause of death is due to septicemia which can be possible from the negligence in treatment. No offence under Section 304 I.P.C. is made out and utmost an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is made out. The prosecution case is full of doubt and the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 5. Learned A.G.A. has contradicted the contention of the appellant and submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of session trial No. 328 of 2001. The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of eye witness (P.W.-1) Babu Khan and (P.W.-2) Suleman Khan and other formal witnesses. 7. As far as the contention of the appellant's counsel that there is no independent witnesses and the witnesses are interested and chance witnesses, is concerned, I do not find any force in this contention as it is clear from the evidence of (P.W.-1) Babu Khan who is the father of the deceased and (P.W.-2) Suleman Khan who is an independent witness that the appellant Afsar Khan fired on Ispan Khan with intention to kill him and due to the fire injury caused by Afsar Khan, Ispan Khan died later on. P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased, but he fully supported the prosecution version. He was crossed by the appellant's counsel at length and there is nothing adverse in his cross examination. 8. P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased, but he fully supported the prosecution version. He was crossed by the appellant's counsel at length and there is nothing adverse in his cross examination. 8. In Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 255 :(2010 AIR SCW 6676), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "17.........under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. That, no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. 18. In Muthu Naicker & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1647 , this Court explained the aforesaid judgment by stating that in a situation where a witness has been attacked by the members of an unlawful assembly composed of a large number of persons, the court should carefully consider the question of the credibility of such a witness. Where the court is of the view that the testimony of such a witness is in the facts and circumstances of the case not reliable, it should insist that such testimony be corroborated by one or more other witness before it can be accepted by the court. 19.................. There is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses have identified a particular accused as a member of the unlawful assembly. It is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters. Even the testimony of one single witness, if wholly reliable, is sufficient to establish the identification of an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly. It is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters. Even the testimony of one single witness, if wholly reliable, is sufficient to establish the identification of an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly. All the same, when the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large (as in this case) and many persons would have witnessed the incident................" 9. Merely because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased person, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that effects the credibility of a witness, moreso, a father would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. The evidence of (P.W.-1) Babu Khan was minutely examined in detail by the learned trial Judge and he rightly relied on his evidence. I also carefully examined his evidence and found that he fully supported the prosecution version and there is nothing in his evidence which is in favour of the appellant. 10. Second argument advanced by the appellant's counsel is that the (P.W.-2) Suleman Khan is a chance witness and his evidence is not supported by the record. I do not find any force in this submission as this witness clearly states that while he was returning from the shop of Israil Khan, he saw the incident. He also stated that Afsar Khan fired over Ispan Khan, which hit the deceased. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant at length cross examined this witness also and there is nothing incriminating in his evidence. This witness also fully supported the prosecution version and there is nothing on the record to not rely the evidence of this witness. 11. Next contention of the appellant's counsel is that there are contradiction in the statement of witness and as per statement of D.W.-1, he closed his shop at 7.00 P.M. while as per prosecution version, incident took place at about 8.00 P.M. at the time when the deceased and his father was returning from the shop of D.W.-1. Learned lower court rightly rejected the evidence of D.W.-1 being an interested witness being relative of Afsar Khan accused appellant against P.W.-1 and P.W. 2 both witnesses supported the prosecution version and specifically said the incident is of about 8.00 P.M. 12. Learned lower court rightly rejected the evidence of D.W.-1 being an interested witness being relative of Afsar Khan accused appellant against P.W.-1 and P.W. 2 both witnesses supported the prosecution version and specifically said the incident is of about 8.00 P.M. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per statement of P.W.-1 his prayer (Namaz) was finished at 7.30 P.M. then he came to his house and eaten something and thereafter he went to the shop of Israil. All these cannot be possible within ½ hour. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.-1 and from the record that P.W.-1 is an illiterate villager. In his evidence, there is no contradiction in the time of occurrence even if there is any minor time gap which is easily possible because the witness is illiterate and stated the time only by imagination. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 CRI.L.J. 3825, has specifically laid down that in a murder case where witnesses are illiterate and if there is variation of 15 to 20 minutes in time of occurrence then it is not a material contradiction. It is clear from the above that there is no material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses regarding time of incident. 13. Next contention of the appellant's counsel is that F.I.R. is anti time. Learned lower court discussed this point at length and came to a right conclusion in this regard because no cross was conducted on this point to P.W.-3 and P.W.-1, and only on the basis of Majroobi Chitthi, it cannot be said that F.I.R. is anti time. I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant's counsel in this regard. 14. Next contention of the appellant's counsel is that incident is of 07.02.2001 and the deceased Ispan Khan was died on 23.03.2001. It cannot be said that the death was due to injury cause in the incident and further more he submitted that as per doctor cause of death is septicemia. Septicemia can also be possible if the treatment of deceased is not proper. As per post mortem report, it is clear that the cause of death is septicemia. Septicemia as a result of post-mortem septic wound. As per post mortem report on the body of deceased there is septic wound 6x4 cm into cavity deep. Septicemia can also be possible if the treatment of deceased is not proper. As per post mortem report, it is clear that the cause of death is septicemia. Septicemia as a result of post-mortem septic wound. As per post mortem report on the body of deceased there is septic wound 6x4 cm into cavity deep. This injury correspondence to the injury caused in the incident and proved by doctor (P.W.-6). Due to this injury, only death was caused. It is also clear from the X-ray report that due to this injury right lung was fully collapsed and left lung was partially collapsed. I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. From the evidence of doctor, it is clear that the cause of death was due to injury caused in incident and it is not due to any negligence in the treatment of the patient. 15. Next submission of the appellant's counsel is that the incident is of night and there was no source of light. It is true that as per prosecution case, no source of light was there at the time of incident, but the source of light looses its importance in the case when the accused and witnesses are well known to each other and they are resident of same village and as per prosecution case, incident also took place when accused and injured are closely talking to each other. 16. From the above discussion, it is clear that learned lower court rightly and fully after discussing the evidence came to a right conclusion and found the accused-appellant guilty of offence under Sections 304 and 506 I.P.C. I do not find any force in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. 17. Office is directed to send the lower court record alongwith the copy of judgment to the learned trial court without delay for compliance. _____________