JUDGMENT : Anjana Prakash, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default of which, further Rigorous Imprisonment for four months as also sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of which, three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act respectively by a Judgment dated 28.01.2011/02.02.2011 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in connection with Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2008 arising out of Beldaur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006. 3. The case of the prosecution, according to one Bauku Choudhary, husband of the deceased, who died during trial, is that on 13.10.2006 at about 7.00 A.M. the Appellant went into their house and confronted his wife saying that she was a witch and had eaten his daughter and she should treat her. When she protested, the Appellant shot her on the chest, on account of which, she died. 4. This information was given immediately thereafter at 11.30 A.M., however, the First Information Report appears to have reached in Court on 16.10.2006 i.e. 3 days later. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses whereas the Defence examined three witnesses. P.W.1, Munni Devi, the daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of Mukesh Choudhary, D.W.1, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution saying that she was in her maternal house on the date of occurrence. Her attention was drawn to her earlier statement, in which the allegations were spelt out against the Appellant. 6. P.W.2, Ajanti Devi @ Ajami Devi, another daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of Dinesh Choudhary, D.W.2, stated that on the date of occurrence at 7.00 A.M., while she was cooking, the Appellant came into courtyard with pistol saying that she was a witch and shot her dead. To a Court question, she answered that the deceased was called a witch because he alleged that she had killed his daughter. In cross-examination, she stated that about 40-45 persons lived in the courtyard and the house of the Appellant was adjacent West and there was no enmity from before with him. She further stated that the house was not bounded off. In cross-examination, she stated that about 40-45 persons lived in the courtyard and the house of the Appellant was adjacent West and there was no enmity from before with him. She further stated that the house was not bounded off. She further asserted that her mother-in-law used to be called a witch by the villagers and that she had been shot at from a close range. 7. P.W. 3, Baso Choudhary, is merely on the point that the deceased Kumudiya Devi had been killed. In cross-examination, she was asked to explain as to when P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, had arrived from her maternal home but he denied ignorance. 8. P.W.4, Deo Narayan Choudhary, is a witness to the Inquest Report (Exhibit-1) but stated in cross-examination that his signature was taken on the outskirts of the village and that in fact, the deceased had been killed in the fields. He also stated that P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, was in her maternal home since the last 15 days and she had returned three months after the death of the mother-in-law. 9. P.W.5, Rajendra Prasad Yadav, is the Investigating Officer, who stated that on 13.10.2006, he heard a rumour that some woman had been killed at which he arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of Bauku Choudhary, the Informant. He proves the same as Exhibit-2, and forwarding on fardbeyan as Exhibit-3. He also stated that the place of occurrence, which was the house of Fulo Choudhary, son of late Babu Lal Choudhary and on the Verandah the dead body was found. Plenty of blood was present there. He asserted that he had examined P.W.1, Munni Devi and P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, P.W. 4, Deo Narayan Choudhary and some others. He tried to look for the Appellant but he had absconded. The attention of this witness was drawn to the earlier statement of P.W.1, Munni Devi, who had stated before him that the Appellant came into the house and blaming the deceased to be a witch who had eaten his daughter, shot her dead. 10. P.W.6, Dr. Dina Nath Prasad, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : On External Examination : Cloths were blood stained. (i) Lacerated wound of size 1/4" X 1/4” X cavity deep with blackening present around the wound with margin inverted at epigastria region (wound of entry). 10. P.W.6, Dr. Dina Nath Prasad, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : On External Examination : Cloths were blood stained. (i) Lacerated wound of size 1/4" X 1/4” X cavity deep with blackening present around the wound with margin inverted at epigastria region (wound of entry). (ii) Lacerated wound of size 1/2" x 1” x cavity deep with averted margin with clots at upper part of buttock right side (wound of exit). There was hole corresponding to the injuries. On Internal Examination:- Abdominal cavity contains blood and clots. There was laceration of diaphragm, liver stomach large intestine, omentum loops of small intestine. All the visceras i.e. lungs, spleen and kidneys were pale. Both side chambers of the heart were empty. Uterus has small. Brain pale. There was fracture of sacral and pelvis bone. Wound Nos.1 and 2 was communicating in nature. 11. He proves the Postmortem Report as Exhibit-7. There is nothing, which is of note in his evidence. 12. D.W.1, Mukesh Choudhary, and D.W.2, Dinesh Choudhary, are the sons of the deceased, who stated that the Appellant was sitting along with them when the mother was shot dead, thus, trying to disprove his complicity. However, D.W.2 in paragraph no.5 stated that on the date of occurrence, all the three brothers were in Delhi whereas his father was at home and his wife P.W.2, Ajanti Devi @ Ajami Devi and P.W.1, Munni Devi, were at home. D.W.3, Nand Kishore Choudhary, had not said anything, which is relevant to the present case. 13. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on the sole evidence of P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, who in all probability was not present there, since the Investigating Officer did not find any material to corroborate the version of cooking at the relevant time. Also, the Investigating Officer has not explained the delay in the receipt of First Information Report in the Court, which is fatal to the prosecution case. 14. There is no doubt that the P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, is the sole witness to the occurrence but her evidence is so tight and to the point that it does not left any scope for doubting it. We further find that the Doctor (P.W.6) found corroborative injuries on the person of the deceased, which further strengthens her version. 15. 14. There is no doubt that the P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, is the sole witness to the occurrence but her evidence is so tight and to the point that it does not left any scope for doubting it. We further find that the Doctor (P.W.6) found corroborative injuries on the person of the deceased, which further strengthens her version. 15. P.W.5, Rajendra Prasad Yadav, the Investigating Officer, had stated that he examined P.W.2, Ajanti Devi @ Ajami Devi, after the occurrence, thus, denying the suggestion that she was at her maternal home on the date of occurrence as also D.W.2, Dinesh Choudhary, her own husband stated that she was present in the house along with his father, the Informant, thus, proving her presence which cannot be faulted on account of the Investigation Officer not noting the signs of cooking. In these circumstances, it does not appear any reason why we should disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, Ajanti Devi, on her presence and her having witnessed the occurrence. 16. As for the First Information Report having reached late, we find that the fardbeyan was given within 5 hours of the occurrence leaving out any scope for any interpolation which is the only reason why these dates are maintained. We further find that this fardbeyan was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge Beldaur P.S. Camp. Didhaun, which indicates that the document had to be sent to the rightful authority from where it was forwarded to the Court, which explains the delay of receipt of the fardbeyan in the Court. 17. In such circumstances, finding no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed.