JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, Judge The present criminal appeal has been preferred by convict/appellant against the judgment dated 31.5.2007/8.6.2007, passed in Sessions Case No. 51-G/2005, whereby the convict/appellant has been convicted of the offences under Sections 302, 452 of the Indian Peal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in reference to FIR No. 49/2005 dated 28.3.2005 and thereby the convict – appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `20,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. For commission offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the convict – appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The convict – appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `5000/- for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was also directed that out of the total amount of fine, a sum of `20,000/-was to be given as compensation to the complainant and remaining amount of fine was to be deposited in the Government treasury. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.3.2005 at about 9.15 P.M., Smt. Simro Devi/victim/(deceased) while she was watching television, along with Parveen Kumar (adopted son of victim), Reshma Devi and Veena Devi, at that time accused Vipin Kumar came to the house of victim and asked her by her name to open the door, on which she replied that due to night she would not open the door and asked the accused to come in day time, the accused became furious and threatened the victim to break open the door. Victim called from inside one Chhano Kumar, on which the accused asked her as to whether said Channo Kumar was her father, when the victim opened the window of her room from inside, complainant Parveen Kumar observed the convict/appellant standing outside, with a gun in his hand. Victim called from inside one Chhano Kumar, on which the accused asked her as to whether said Channo Kumar was her father, when the victim opened the window of her room from inside, complainant Parveen Kumar observed the convict/appellant standing outside, with a gun in his hand. The complainant identified the accused in the electric light of bulb in verandah. Victim tried to prevail over the accused, but the accused did not pay any heed to her advice and had fired gun shot through the net of the window which hit on the neck/throat of victim, consequently, the victim succumbed to the injuries. The complainant Parveen Kumar opened the door and found that accused was loading his gun again, however, Parveen Kumar and Veena Devi scuffled with the accused and tried to snatch the gun, by that time the pet/dog of victim also came running there and in the mean time Veena Devi was successful in snatching the gun from the accused, thereafter the accused ran away. Parveen Kumar and Rakesh Kumar informed about the incident to Sh. Lok Bahadur, son-in-law of deceased telephonically, who came in the morning of 28.3.2005, and gave information to Amin Chand, Pradhan and, who, subsequently informed the police. Accordingly, rapat Ex. PW-14/A, was entered and FIR Ex. PW-11/A was registered. Post mortem of the victim was conducted by PW-7 (Dr. Puran Chand). After completion of investigation, the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen prosecution witnesses, whereas the convict/appellant, while denying the prosecution case, has adduced two defence witnesses. 4. PW-1 (Rakesh Kumar), PW-2 (Piungla Devi), PW-3 (Parveen Kumar), PW-4 (Smt. Veena Devi), consistently supported the prosecution case. 5. PW-1 (Rakesh Kumar, in his endaveour to support the prosecution case, has stated that on the fateful day, on hearing the noise of fire, he came out of his house and observed that Parveen Kumar (PW-3) and Veena Devi (PW-4) were scuffling with accused Vipin Kumar and they were snatching gun from accused. PW-4 was successful in snatching the gun. In that process, accused fell down and sustained injuries on his head. In the mean time, the pet of the victim came there, being afraid, accused (Vipin Kumar) ran away. At the instance of PW-3, information was given to Lok Bahadur. PW-1 has re-iterated his statement in his cross examination. PW-4 was successful in snatching the gun. In that process, accused fell down and sustained injuries on his head. In the mean time, the pet of the victim came there, being afraid, accused (Vipin Kumar) ran away. At the instance of PW-3, information was given to Lok Bahadur. PW-1 has re-iterated his statement in his cross examination. In addition, he has also stated in cross-examination that victim was the real aunt of the accused and accused and wife of PW-1 were on visiting terms with victim/deceased and they used to go to the house of victim quite often. PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that he did not know as to why snatching incident was taken place, so much so, PW-1 did not know as to why PW-3 and PW-4 were scuffling with accused. 6. PW-2 (Smt. Piungla Devi), another independent witness, also supported the prosecution case. PW-2 stated that when she came out of her house, after hearing noise of gunshot, she observed PW-3 and PW-4 scuffling with accused and snatching gun from him. PW-2, while supporting the prosecution case, in her cross-examination, has fairly indicated that she was not aware of the cause of scuffle amongst PW-3, PW-4 and the accused. PW-2 has also stated in her cross-examination that no one had gone to inform Pradhan till arrival of Lok Bahadur. 7. PW-3/(Parveen Kumar) and PW-4/(Veena Devi) have consistently and coherently corroborated the prosecution case. PW-4, however, has stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused has fired on victim with intention to kill her, because the victim has adopted a son after birth of two daughters and accused has an eye on the property of the victim. In view of testimony of PW-4, made in cross-examination, accused was not having any litigation with the victim. PW-4 has further stated that the accused has threatened PW-3 and thereafter accused and his family members were not in visiting terms with the victim. PW-4 has however denied the suggestion that the victim had died in accidental fire, which took place during the scuffle. 8. PW-5/(Sh. Amin Chand), Pradhan Gram Panchyat, Danowa, after coming to know about the incident, gave information to the police and has supported the prosecution case. 9. PW-6/(Sh. Khehri Ram) had witnessed the seizure of clothes, namely, shirt and one koti of accused, to the police. 8. PW-5/(Sh. Amin Chand), Pradhan Gram Panchyat, Danowa, after coming to know about the incident, gave information to the police and has supported the prosecution case. 9. PW-6/(Sh. Khehri Ram) had witnessed the seizure of clothes, namely, shirt and one koti of accused, to the police. PW-6 has stated in his cross-examination that, as observed by him, there was blood on the whole body of the accused. 10. PW-7/(Dr. Puran Chand) conducted the post mortem on the person of the victim on 28.3.2005 and after nothing the injuries recorded following opinion:- “There was lacerated wound present on lower half of left side of neck 10 cms long X 6 cm wide X 6 cms deep extending into upper part of left side of thorax. Marigins were inverted, bruished and dark in colour. Wound was filled with clotted blood. Muscles blood vessels and other tissue were lacerated and damaged. Two metal pallets were removed from the deep tissues of the wound. Clotted blood was present over the neck, face and chest. 1. Craniun and spinal cord was normal. 2. Upper pleurac of left side was bruished. 3. Larynx and trachea was lacerated. 4. Upper log of left lung was lacerated. 5. Blood was present on thoracic cavity on left side. 6. Abdomen was normal. 7. Muscle bones and joints are normal. OPINION In my opinion, the deceased died due to fire arm injury in neck and thorax with massive hemorrhage. The probable time between injury and death was of a few minutes and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours.” PW-7 has stated in his cross-examination that the pallets had gone deep in sensitive and vital organ of the victim/deceased. As stated by PW-7 that the darkening of the margins of the wound shows that there was sufficient gunpowder while the fire had been directed on the deceased/victim and in the circumstances, the fire was made from a short distance. PW-7, however, admitted the suggestion that this type of injury can also be caused by an accidental fire. 11. PW-8/(Parkash Chand) the Patwari and PW-9/ (Ashok Kumar), photographer are formal witnesses. PW-10 (Lok Bahadur) has supported the prosecution case by stating that he has observed the dead body of victim. PW-11 (H.C. Anjan Pal) recorded the FIR Ex. PW-11/A. PW-12 (H.C. Thakur Ram) had witnessed the parcels and seizure memo related to the killing of the victim. 11. PW-8/(Parkash Chand) the Patwari and PW-9/ (Ashok Kumar), photographer are formal witnesses. PW-10 (Lok Bahadur) has supported the prosecution case by stating that he has observed the dead body of victim. PW-11 (H.C. Anjan Pal) recorded the FIR Ex. PW-11/A. PW-12 (H.C. Thakur Ram) had witnessed the parcels and seizure memo related to the killing of the victim. PW-12 also accepted the deposit of clothes of accused sealed with seal ‘R’ and the pallet extracted from the dead body of the deceased. The said material was kept in Mal Khana Register No. 19. All the articles, except parcels containing slippers of the accused, were sent by PW-12 to FSL Junga vide R.C. No. 52/21 and 53/21 through Constable Pardeep Kumar (PW-13) for chemical analysis. PW-13 (Constable Pardeep Kumar) also supported the statement of PW-12 in his official capacity. PW14 (ASI Rama Nand) and PW-15 (S.I. Ranjit Singh) have supported the prosecution case in discharge of their official duty. 12. It has been argued on behalf of the convict/appellant that the material witnesses had not been examined as the houses of Jadish Chand, Rattan Chand, Hari Ram and Vinod Kumar etc. were at the back of the house of deceased, as such, these persons were to be associated by virtue of these persons belonging to the vicinity of the victim/deceased and being material witnesses, as such, the prosecution case become doubtful. It has also been argued on behalf of the convict/appellant that the prosecution has mainly relied upon the interested and related witnesses, as such, also the prosecution case is doubtful. 13. On analysis of prosecution witnesses, we find that the aforesaid persons reside near the house of victim/deceased, but their houses are at sufficient distance from the house of victim/deceased, as revealed from the testimony of PW-8 (Parkash Chand, Patwari), who prepared Ex. PW-8/A to Ex. PW-8/C after visiting the spot and he being a Government official has no motive to depose falsely, so much so, PW-8 even, in his cross-examination, has categorically deposed that houses at the back of the house of victim/deceased are at a distance of 700-800 meters. In these circumstances, it might not be possible that these persons could have heard gunshot, firing on the day of occurrence through the window towards the room of the victim/deceased. In these circumstances, it might not be possible that these persons could have heard gunshot, firing on the day of occurrence through the window towards the room of the victim/deceased. Witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, while residing in the same building, in which the incident took place, have very categorically deposed that when they heard noise of gunshot and cries, they immediately came out of their houses and they had seen the gun in the hands of the convict/appellant when Parveen Kumar (PW-3) and Veena Devi (PW-4) were snatching that gun from the accused. In present case, the neighbourers, therefore, reached the spot and have categorically supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, it is not necessary that all these persons, who are residing in the vicinity of the victim/deceased, are to be examined, as it is quality of the evidence which matters and not the quantity, which are material for the prosecution in view of observations of Supreme Court in Chittar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6, SCC, 397. We also note that though many of the prosecution witnesses are related amongst themselves, however, their testimonies have to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously and we notice that there was nothing which may affect the credibility of such witnesses and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are cogent and credible and are inspiring confidence. There is nothing on record that PW-3 and PW-4, being the relatives of the victim/deceased, have any motive to depose falsely against the accused. Even no suggestion of enmity has been put to them in their cross-examination. In absence of any thing contrary on record to show that by virtue of being interested or inimical witnesses, their testimonies should not be relied upon. More so, when the testimonies of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are harmoniously corroborating each other, as such, the testimonies of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved, simply on the ground that they are interested and related witnesses as in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra versus Tulsiram Bhanudas Kamble, AIR 2007 SC 3042 , Sudershan Reddy versus State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 2616, Amzad Ali versus State of Assam, (2003) SCC 270 and Sucha Singh versus State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 , the testimonies of witness in criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because the witnesses are relative or family members of the victim. 14. 14. Another submission, advanced on behalf of the convict/appellant, is that the death of victim was due to accidental fire, which took place while the gun was being snatched from the accused by Parveen Kumar (PW-3) and Veena Devi (PW-4) and both are equally responsible for the death of the victim, like the accused. In this respect, we notice that snatching incident of gun from the accused is an event, which took place after fire, whereas, the accused has first asked the deceased to open the door and when the victim/deceased refused to do so, then the accused had threatened her to do away with her life after breaking open the door, on which the victim opened the window of her room instead of door. PW-3 and PW-4 have also stated that the accused had fired gun shot through the window towards the deceased, as a result of which she suffered fire injuries on her neck, which has caused her instant death and only then the door was opened and thereafter the occurrence of snatching of gun had taken place. We also take a note of the fact that there is no suggestion put on behalf of the accused to these witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) that no fire had taken place by the accused prior to snatching of the gun incident. The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 are specific that the snatching occurrence was subsequent to the gun fire made by the accused and the death of victim had taken place due to this gun fire. So the assertion of the convict/appellant that the victim had died because of the accidental fire is without any force. 15. The other arguments, advanced on behalf of the convict/appellant, that because of the unexplained delay in lodging FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident took place on 27.3.2005 at 9.15 P.M. and the incident was reported on 28.3.2005. To this effect, statement of PW-5, makes it clear that it is Lok Bahadur (PW-10), who informed him at about 4.00 A.M. on 28.3.2005, about the occurrence and it was PW-5, who had given information about the incident to the police on telephone. Ex. To this effect, statement of PW-5, makes it clear that it is Lok Bahadur (PW-10), who informed him at about 4.00 A.M. on 28.3.2005, about the occurrence and it was PW-5, who had given information about the incident to the police on telephone. Ex. PW-14/A is Rapat No. 14, dated 28.3.2005, according to which, information was given by Pradhan Amin Chand (PW-5) to the police at about 4:45 A.M. regarding the killing of victim by gun fire and thereafter the police proceeded to the spot. PW-10 (Lok Bahadur), son-in-law of the victim, has categorically deposed that on 27.3.2005, he was informed by PW-3 at about 10/10:30 P.M. about the death of victim due to fire of the accused and then PW-10 left his place at about 12/1:00 A.M during the night and reached the house of the deceased by 3:30 A.M. on 28.3.2005. The statements of PW-1 and PW-3 are also to the same effect. So the delay, has satisfactorily explained, as such, in the facts and circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal, more so, when the distance of police station is about 35 Kilometers from the place of incident and since the incident took place in the night, it was not possible to cover such distance during the night time for reporting the matter to the police. In these circumstances, the submissions, advanced on behalf of the convict/appellant, are without any force. 16. Learned counsel for the convict/appellant argued that because of the major contradictions and infirmities in the evidences, the prosecution case cannot be believed. In this respect, we notice that PW-3 and PW-4, being the eye witnesses of the occurrence, have consistently and harmoniously given full account of the incident and there appears to be no contradiction. Even if, minor infirmities are there, even then also the evidences of the prosecution cannot be thrown away on such minor contradictions, in view of the observations of Supreme Court in Gurdev and another Vs. State of Punjab and Piara Singh, 2003 (7) S.C.C. 258 . Minor contradictions or inconsistencies, as noted above, shall be irrelevant as the minor contradictions do not go to the root of the case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Ramesh & Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 , Waman & Others versus State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295 . Minor contradictions or inconsistencies, as noted above, shall be irrelevant as the minor contradictions do not go to the root of the case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Ramesh & Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 , Waman & Others versus State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in State of U.P. versus Naresh & Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 that minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and trivial matters which do not affect core of prosecution case, should not be made a ground for rejecting the evidence in its entirety. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atmaram & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 738 , has also observed that every variation or discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot belie the case of the prosecution per se. The arguments advanced on behalf of the convict/appellant that the injuries suffered by the accused have not been explained satisfactorily, as such, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and convict/appellant is entitled for acquittal. In this respect, we see that testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are harmonious that the injuries suffered by the accused caused at the time when he had fallen down in the scuffle, which has taken place when the gun was being snatched by PW-3 and PW-4 from him. At that time the accused had fallen in the field adjacent to the court-yard of the house of victim and thus the injuries were caused and were relatable to the occurrence. 17. DW-1 (Sushil Kumar) has since deposed that the house of victim and PW-2 have common verandah and that at the back of the house of victim, there are houses of Pritam, Rattan Chand, Hoshiar Singh and Jagdish etc. and back door of the house of victim opens towards the houses of these persons. DW-1 deposed that on 27.3.2005 at about 11:00 P.M. PW-1 and PW-3 when came to his house, he opened the door and had seen the clothes of both these persons stained with blood. and back door of the house of victim opens towards the houses of these persons. DW-1 deposed that on 27.3.2005 at about 11:00 P.M. PW-1 and PW-3 when came to his house, he opened the door and had seen the clothes of both these persons stained with blood. DW-1 further deposed that both these persons had told him that they wanted to give telephonic information about the gun fire and then they had made telephone call to Lok Bahadur from his house. DW-1 has further deposed that he had volunteered to accompany those persons, but they had refused and on questioning them about the fire incident, they had not told him anything. Prima facie the testimony of DW-1 is not worth reliable as no suggestion was made that PW-3 and PW-4 had gone to the house of DW-1 (Sunil Kumar) and from his house a telephonic message has been given to Lok Bahadur. Whereas, on the other hand Lok Bahadur (PW-10) has categorically deposed that he had received a telephone call from PW-1 (Rakesh Kumar) and PW-3 (Parveen Kumar). Therefore, the deposition of DW-1 that PW-1 and PW-3 visited his house at about 11:00 P.M. on 27.3.2005 and had made a telephone call to inform Lok Bahadur about the incident, cannot be believed. 18. DW-2 (Amar Singh) deposed that the gun in this case is muzzle loading gun and he has given the procedure which is required for its loading. DW-2 further deposed that in case loaded gun is sought to be snatched during scuffle and during the course of such scuffle gun strikes on the ground then there is possibility of accidental fire from it. The testimony of DW-2 is also of no help to the appellant, because it is not the case of the convict/appellant that the gun at any point of time, has struck against the ground, when it was being snatched by PW-4 (Veena Devi). Even no suggestion to this effect was ever given to PW-3 and PW-4 during their cross-examination. On the other hand, in view of the deposition of PW-3 and PW-4, it is evident that accused had first fired a gun shot on the victim through the window, which caused her death and incident of snatching of that gun from accused took place thereafter. On the other hand, in view of the deposition of PW-3 and PW-4, it is evident that accused had first fired a gun shot on the victim through the window, which caused her death and incident of snatching of that gun from accused took place thereafter. We also notice that the gun had not struck to the ground at the time when the same was being snatched by PW-3 and PW-4 from the accused. In this regard, the testimony of DW-2 is also of no help to the convict/appellant. 19. On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses, material on record and medical evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at a finding through the impugned judgment that on the night of 27.3.2005, the convict/appellant had tress-passed the house of the victim with an intention to attack her and in that process, convict/appellant was carrying a loaded gun with him and he had caused death of the victim by firing gunshot, which struck the victim on her neck. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and have also made appraisal of the prosecution evidences and material on record, therefore, in our considered view, too the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the accused and there is no scope of taking a different view, other than what has been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As such, the convict/appellant is held guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. There is no scope of any alteration in the sentence imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, as such, we affirm the judgment and verdict of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 8.6.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 51-G/2005. The criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.