JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J 1. This Jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in S.C. No.385 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case is that accused-appellant is the cousin of the informant. He was working in Madras as a labourer. There, as he sustained fracture of his leg, he (accused-appellant) returned to his village. During his stay in his village he again suffered from thyroid and epilepsy. The accused-appellant was suspecting that the informant's (P.W.1's) father (deceased) had played sorcery on him for causing such diseases. Fifteen days prior to the occurrence, the accused-appellant had quarrelled with the informant for the same reason and had given threat to kill the deceased. The matter was reported before the village gentlemen and it was to be decided on a Sunday of February, 2002. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 23.02.2002, the accused-appellant came to the thrashing floor located at Asinasahi and enquired about the deceased. He also asked the wife of the informant about the deceased. On that day at about 5.30 P.M., the deceased with his grandson (P.W.2) went to collect 'Salap Ras'. At about 6.00 P.M., the informant heard a gun shot. Thereafter, P.W.2 came running and informed him (P.W.1) that accused appellant had killed his grandfather by firing from his gun. Immediately, the informant (P.W.1) went there and saw his father lying dead being shot at his face. Out of fear he immediately left Asinasahi and went along with his family members to the house of the sister of his father located at Kumbhar Dalli and stayed there that night. On the next morning, he came, to Tasarang and narrated the occurrence before the villagers. Then the villagers came to the spot along with the informant and saw the deceased lying dead with gun shot injury. On the next morning, he came, to Tasarang and narrated the occurrence before the villagers. Then the villagers came to the spot along with the informant and saw the deceased lying dead with gun shot injury. While some of the villagers guarded the dead body of the deceased, the informant along with the ward member and other co-villagers went to Khariaguda Outpost and lodged a written report, on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted under Section 302, IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (a) of tile Arms Act against the accused-appellant and thereafter trial commenced. 3. During the course of trial, the accused-appellant denied the i1llegations and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and exhibited 15 documents. The defence examined none. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge basing upon the evidence of the two eye witnesses and other incriminating materials such as the recovery of the gun and the disclosure statement of the accused-appellant found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302, IPC and Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him as already indicated hereinbefore. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the FIR was lodged one day after the occurrence by the informant and no plausible explanation has been given by the informant to that effect. He also submits that the informant did not disclose about the Incident immediately to the villagers, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case. He further submits that P.W.2, the child witness is not a believable witness and he had not seen the occurrence. Therefore, it is a fit case where this Court should interfere and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. S.K. Zafarulla learned Addl. Standing Counsel vehemently contended that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The informant (P.W.1), who is the son of the deceased, soon after the occurrence out of fear went along with his family members to the house of the sister of his father which is situated at Kumbhar Dalli, stayed there in the night and communicated the message to the sister of the deceased. The informant (P.W.1), who is the son of the deceased, soon after the occurrence out of fear went along with his family members to the house of the sister of his father which is situated at Kumbhar Dalli, stayed there in the night and communicated the message to the sister of the deceased. On the next day morning, he went to his village and narrating the incident before the villagers and the Ward Member went to the spot along with them. From there, he went to the Kariaguda Outpost, which is 50 KMs away from the spot, along with the ward member and some villagers and lodged the FIR. He further submits that P.W.2, the child witness, is the grandson of the deceased, who had gone along with the deceased to collect 'Slap Rasa'. So, it cannot be said that P.W.2 had not seen the occurrence and there is also no material to disbelieve his evidence, P.W.2 has specifically stated that the accused appellant came to the spot, aimed his gun at his grandfather, who was on the tree, and shot him. P.W.4, a co-villager also deposed about recovery of the gun at the instance of the accused. There is no material to show that the learned sessions Judge has committed any error in convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act. Therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere by this Court. 7. Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the evidence minutely. P.W.1 is the informant. He stated that the deceased was his father and the accused-appellant is his paternal uncle. On the date of occurrence before sunset his deceased father and his nephew (P.W.2) had gone to bring Salap Ras from the Salap tree situated at about 300 yards from their house. At about 6.00 P.M. his nephew (P.W.2) came crying and told that the accused-appellant fired gun shot at the deceased, who fell down from the tree as he was climbing then. On receipt of this information, he rushed to the spot with his nephew and found his father lying dead being shot on his face. Being afraid he along with his family members went to the house of the sister of his father located at Kumbhar Dali and stayed there in the (light. On receipt of this information, he rushed to the spot with his nephew and found his father lying dead being shot on his face. Being afraid he along with his family members went to the house of the sister of his father located at Kumbhar Dali and stayed there in the (light. On the next morning, he went to his village Tasarang and narrated the incident to the villagers including the ward member. All of them went to the spot and there on the instruction of the ward member some of the villagers guarded the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, he along with some other villagers including the ward member proceeded to Khariaguda Outpost and orally reported the incident which was reduced to writing by the O.I.C., Jarada P.S. vide Ext. 1 on which he put his signatures marked Exts. 1/1 & 1/2. He further stated that prior to the occurrence accused-appellant had gone to Madras but he returned as his leg broke there. On return, the accused-appellant suffered from 'GALAGANDA' and he suspected the deceased to have played sorcery on him, for which he killed him. In cross-examination nothing has been elicited to discredit the evidence of this witness and he has categorically denied the suggestion that his father had a lot of enemies and he was killed by some other person and he has foisted this case against the accused-appellant. P.W.2 is a child witness being twelve years age at the time of his examination. He is the grandson of the deceased and nephew of the accused-appellant. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on the date of occurrence in the evening he and his grandfather had gone to collect Salap Ras with an earthen pot. While his grandfather was climbing up the Salap tree, at that time the accused appellant came and fired the gun shot aiming at his grandfather, who fell down from the tree receiving the gun shot. The, he ran back to his house crying and narrated the incident to P.W.1, his paternal uncle, who came to the spot and found his grandfather dead. In cross-examination, P.W.2 has categorically stated that he saw the accused killing his grandfather by firing from his gun and at that time the accused was sanding behind him (P.W.2) P.W.3 is a co-villager who has no direct knowledge about the occurrence. In cross-examination, P.W.2 has categorically stated that he saw the accused killing his grandfather by firing from his gun and at that time the accused was sanding behind him (P.W.2) P.W.3 is a co-villager who has no direct knowledge about the occurrence. He deposed that on being informed by P.W.1 he went to the spot and saw the dead body guarded by some persons. He along with' others accompanied P.W.1. to Khariaguda Outpost where the oral report of P.W.1 was reduced to writing by the O.I.C., Jarada P.S. vide Ext. 1 on which he put his signature marked Ext. 1/3. P.W.4 is another co-villager who testified that while in custody the accused agreed to give recovery, of the gun. The disclosure memo (Ext. 3) was recorded by the police and Ext. 3/1 is his signature. The accused led the police to the Aatu of his house and gave recovery of the gun (M.O.I) which was seized by the police under Ext. 4. Nothing substantial has been elicited through cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.5 is the ward member of the occurrence village who corroborated the statement of P.W.3. He is a witness to the inquest and he proves the inquest report (Ext. 5) and his signature (Ext. 5/1). He further deposed that prior to the occurrence the accused had threatened the deceased for which a meeting was to be held on Sunday. But, on Saturday the deceased died due to firing by the accused. In cross-examination he admitted that neither the deceased nor P.W.1 had told him regarding the threat which they received from the accused. Except this nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. P.W.6 is a post occurrence witness who has been declared hostile. P.W.7 is the police constable who collected the sample blood and pellet from the doctor which were seized under Ext. 6 in his presence. PW.8 is another constable who took the dead body to the Autopsy Surgeon for post-mortem and also collected the wearing apparels of the deceased. He stated to be a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased under Ext. 7 and the command certificate under Ext. 8. 6 in his presence. PW.8 is another constable who took the dead body to the Autopsy Surgeon for post-mortem and also collected the wearing apparels of the deceased. He stated to be a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased under Ext. 7 and the command certificate under Ext. 8. P.W.8 is the I.O. who deposed that on receipt of V.H.F. message he along with the O.I.C. proceeded to Khariaguda Outpost, the O.I.C. recorded the oral report of the informant (P.W.1) and after drawing the formal FIR directed him to take investigation. During investigation he examined some of the witnesses, proceeded to the spot, seized the sample earth and bloodstained earth, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post-mortem examination. On 26.02.2002, he apprehended the accused and took him to his custody. While in custody, the accused made disclosure statement and gave recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., gun, which was seized by him. He sent the incriminating articles to the R.F.S.L., Berhampur and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination he stated that there was no bloodstain on the Salap tree. He alongwith P.Ws. 4 and 5 as well as the accused went to the house of the accused, while he was in his custody and at the time of recovery of the gun only the father of the accused was in his house. From him nothing substantial has been brought out by way of cross-examination to demolish the prosecution case. P.W.10 is the doctor of M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries:- "(1) A gutter like lacerated wound of 12 cm x 5 cm x maxilloorbital cavity situated on the right side face extending obliquely upwards and medially. The skin and the soft tissues including muscles and vessels were found torn and missing at the injury site and underlying bones were fractured into multiple pieces. The right side eye ball was found almost eviscerated and loosely hanging. The lower margin of the wound revealed abraded collar and grease collar. (2) A lacerated and punctured wound with everted margin situated close to the medical canthas of left eye measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x nasal cavity and communicating to the injury No.1 through a track beneath the nose. The lower margin of the wound revealed abraded collar and grease collar. (2) A lacerated and punctured wound with everted margin situated close to the medical canthas of left eye measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x nasal cavity and communicating to the injury No.1 through a track beneath the nose. The nasal bones were found fractured with tearing of adjacent soft tissue (3) A small more or less circular punctured laceration with surrounding abraded collar detected on the right infra clavicular area having 1 cm diameter. A metallic ball was recovered from the underlying subcutaneous tissue which was preserved and handed over to the police for further examination at S.F.S.L. (4) Abraded contusion 7 cm x 4 cm on the right lateral aspect of chest over infra-axillary area." He opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 were consistent with shot gun fire arm injuries whereas injury No.4 alongwith its correspondent internal injury was caused by blunt trauma. He further opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from above mentioned injuries and consequences thereof. In cross-examination he stated that the bullet had been fired from the right side of the deceased directing the muzzle obliquely upwards to the target. 8. In the instant case, P.W.2 is the sole witness to the occurrence His evidence has been seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on ground that he is a child witness. It has been held by this Court in Rajani Kanta Panda v. State of Orissa, (2011) 50 OCR 66, 2011 (Supp. II) OLR 254 that the evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se but the Court must see the intellectual capacity of such child to understand the questions and give rational answers and such evidence should be closely scrutinized. The above view of this Court is fortified by the• decision of the apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Gulapuji and others, (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 374 wherein their Lordships have propounded that a child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he/she has intellectual capacity to understand the questions and give rational answers thereto Evidence of child witness is not required to be rejected per se. But, the Court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence on close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality and reliability thereof records conviction based thereon. 9. With the above touchstone, this Court scrutinized the evidence of P.W.2 and found that at the time of examination he was twelve years of age. The learned Trial Judge after putting some relevant questions has certified that the witness (P.W.2) is fit enough to depose in this case. P.W.2 has specifically stated in his evidence that in the evening he and his grandfather had gone to collect 'Salap Rasa' with an earthen pot. While his grandfather was climbing up the Salap tree, at that time the accused appellant came and fired the gunshot aiming at his grandfather, who fell down from the tree receiving the gun shot. Then, he ran back to his house crying and narrated the incident to P.W.1, his paternal uncle. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that P.W.2 is a believable witness and he had seen the occurrence. 10. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the medical evidence corroborates the oral evidence of P.W.2. Going through the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.9) and P.W.4, a co-villager, this Court also finds that the accused appellant while in police custody made disclosure statement and gave recovery of the weapon of offence (gun) from the 'Aatu' of his house which was seized by the I.O. under Ext. 4. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that seeing the dead body of his father out of fear he went along with his family members to the house of his father's sister and stayed there. Only on the next morning, he came back to his village, disclosed the matter to the villagers, took them to the place of occurrence, went to Khariagad Outpost alongwith the ward member and some villagers and reported the matter before the police. In the face of this evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging the FIR. 11. The ocular evidence of P.W.2 and the incriminating circumstances narrated in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establish the guilt of the appellant and as such there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. 12. 11. The ocular evidence of P.W.2 and the incriminating circumstances narrated in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establish the guilt of the appellant and as such there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. 12. In the result, the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld. I agree. Appeal dismissed.