JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Singh,J.) 1. This criminal jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused Ram Narayan Nishad @ Ramaina against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.3.2016 passed by the Trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 122 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs Ram Narayan Nishad @ Ramaina), under Sections- 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. 2. By means of impugned judgment and order, trial court has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section-302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with a default sentence of one year. The appellant-accused, however, was acquitted of charge under Section-3/25 Arms Act. 3. The case against the appellant-accused has arisen on the basis of written report Ext. Ka-4 dated 20.10.2012, lodged by the informant/complainant Ram Sanehi Nishad s/o Late. Nanku Nishad r/o Village-Ram Sanehi Ka Dera, Majre, Sarkandi P.S.-Asothar District-Fatehpur. 4. In brief the prosecution story as emerges out from the perusal of the FIR is that the marriage of the daughter of complainant Smt Ranno Devi (deceased) aged about 28 years had taken place about 11 years ago with accused Ram Narayan Nishad @ Ramaina s/o Late. Ram Raj Nishad r/o Thuriyani, P.S. Kishunpur, District-Fatehpur. Accused is of criminal nature and because of this Ranno Devi was residing in his house for the last 5 to 6 years and accused remained residing in his house for the last one and a half months and Ranno Devi always rebuked him for his criminality. Annoying from this, on 20.10.2012 at about 7:00 P.M. when she was cooking food accused shot her dead by Tamancha (country made pistol). The shot hit on her left shoulder (Pakhaura). On hearing the sound of gun shot, informant along with his wife Smt Kushma Devi and daughter-in-law Kushma Devi w/o Shiv Kumar rushed there then accused escaped towards east with Tamancha. Ranno Devi after wriggling died. 5. On the basis of written report (Ext.Ka-1) submitted by the informant/complainant a Chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared and the case was registered at 8.50 p.m. on 20.10.2012 against the appellant-accused in case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC at P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur. The endorsement of which was made in G.D. Ext. Ka-5. Ranno Devi after wriggling died. 5. On the basis of written report (Ext.Ka-1) submitted by the informant/complainant a Chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared and the case was registered at 8.50 p.m. on 20.10.2012 against the appellant-accused in case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC at P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur. The endorsement of which was made in G.D. Ext. Ka-5. Initially, the case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC was investigated by PW-4 S.I. Kamla Shanker Yadav thereafter, this case was investigated by PW-7 S.I. Shiv Mangal Singh. Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-2 of the deceased Ranno Devi on 21.10.2012. Thereafter, Investigating Officer prepared other relevant papers regarding postmortem of the dead body of the deceased such as chhallannash Ext. Ka-7, photonash Ext. Ka-8, letter to C.M.O. Ext. Ka-9 sample seal Ext. Ka-10 and site plan Ext. Ka-11. Investigating Officer also prepared Fard Ext. Ka-3 regarding the blood stained and simple earth. Thereafter postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor on 21.10.2012 at about 3:45 P.M. 6. During investigation on 4.1.2013 in a police encounter headed by S.O. Shiv Mangal Singh, appellant-accused was arrested and interrogated. He got recovered the country made pistol allegedly used in committing the murder of deceased. In this regard a Fard Ext. Ka-12 was prepared and on the basis of Fard Ext. Ka-12 the case was registered against appellant-accused in case crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25 Arms Act. The endorsement of which was made in G.D. Ext. Ka-14. This case was investigated by PW-6 S.I. Lal Mani. Investigating Officer of this case visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-15. The Investigating Officer also obtained sanction order on 18.1.2013 from the then District Magistrate, Fatehpur for prosecution of the accused under Section-3/25 Arms Act. Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-18 of the place of recovery of weapon used for committing the alleged murder. Letters were sent to the Director Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow regarding examination of the recovered country made pistol and cartridge. 7. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-21 in case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC and another charge-sheet Ext. Ka-18 of the place of recovery of weapon used for committing the alleged murder. Letters were sent to the Director Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow regarding examination of the recovered country made pistol and cartridge. 7. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-21 in case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC and another charge-sheet Ext. Ka-16 in case crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25Arms Act, P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur against the appellant-accused before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, where from the cases have been committed to the Court of Sessions. 8. The Trial Court after hearing the prosecution as well as defense and perusing the material available on record had framed charges against the appellant-accused under Sections-302 IPC as well as 3/25 Arms Act. The charges framed were read over and explained to the appellant-accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence. 9. In support of the charges, prosecution had examined PW-1 Informant Ram Sanehi, PW-2 Abrar Hussain, PW-3 Dr. Abdul Sattar Khan, PW-4 Kamla Shanker Yadav, PW-5 Rakesh Bahadur Singh, PW-6 S.I. Lal Mani Singh and PW-7 Shiv Mangal Singh. 10. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire prosecution case and also stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity. It has been stated that his wife Ranno Devi was residing in her parental home for the last 5-6 years and he was occasionally visiting there only to meet his wife, he was not residing there and nothing was recovered from him 11. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material on record. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant-accused has contended that appellant-accused is innocent and he has not committed the murder of his wife Smt Ranno devi. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that appellant-accused had no motive to commit the murder of his wife. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that deceased was not a virtuous lady and some unknown person had committed her murder. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that appellant-accused had no motive to commit the murder of his wife. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that deceased was not a virtuous lady and some unknown person had committed her murder. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that as per prosecution story at the time of incident Smt Kushma Devi w/o Ram Sanehi informant and his daughter-in-law Smt Kushma Devi were also present outside of the door of the house but they have not been examined by prosecution to corroborate the evidence of Ram Sanehi PW-1. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that PW-1 Informant Ram Sanehi being the father of the deceased is an interested witness and his testimony cannot be believed without corroboration by any other independent witness. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae has further contended that prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant-accused, therefore the appeal against the impugned judgment and order is liable to be allowed. 15. Per contra learned AGA for the State has contended that from the prosecution evidence available on record, the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant-accused. Learned AGA has further contended that impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence, available on record, and finding recorded by the trial court did not suffer from any infirmity and, as such, the appeal is devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed. PW-1 informant Ram Sanehi is the father of the deceased, he had stated in his statement on oath that accused is his son-in-law and he had married his daughter Ranno Devi with him about 11 years ago from this incident. He further contended that his daughter Ranno Devi was residing in his house for the last 5-6 years as his son-in-law, who is a man of criminal nature, used to beat his daughter. He also contends that when his daughter was residing in his house, accused was visiting to his house and prior to one and half months of the incident in question accused was started to reside in his house. He also contends that when his daughter was residing in his house, accused was visiting to his house and prior to one and half months of the incident in question accused was started to reside in his house. PW-1 has contended that as his daughter often used to rebuke the accused for his criminal activities for which he used to annoy and on 20.10.2012, at about 7.00-7.30 P.M. in the evening, accused shot dead his daughter at the point of time, when his daughter was cooking food. The gun shot hit his daughter's left shoulder (Pakhaura) and at the place where his daughter was cooking food, there is verandah and fromwhere the kitchen is visible and therein a 'Diya' was lighting. On hearing the sound of gun shot, he along with his wife Smt Kushma Devi rushed to the kitchen and saw that accused alongwith country made pistol in his hand escaped towards the east. His daughter Ranno Devi succumbed to the gun shot injury within five minutes. Thereafter, Manoj Kumar, who is neighbour of PW-1, had written the application/report Ext. Ka-1 on his dictation and, thereafter, Manoj Kumar had read over the application/report, thereupon he put his signature over it. Thereafter, he had gone to the police station alongwith Manoj Kumar and reached the police station on the same day at about 10.30 P.M. in the night and handed over the written report, then the case was registered against the accused. He has further stated that inquest proceeding of the dead body had commenced on 21.10.2012 at about 7.00 A.M. The inquest report Ext. Ka-2 was prepared on the spot before him and his signature was obtained on it. Postmortem of the dead body of his daughter was performed and thereafter cremation was done by him. Police had collected blood stained and plain earth from the place where the dead body of his daughter was lying. He had got inspected the place of occurrence to Daroga Ji and he had inquired from him. PW-2 Constable Abrar Hussain had stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 he was posted as Constable Clerk at P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur and on that date on the application of Ram Sanehi he had prepared the Chik FIR Ext. Ka-4. Thereafter, he had made an endorsement in the G.D. Ext. Ka-5 at Serial No. 36. PW-3 Dr. PW-2 Constable Abrar Hussain had stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 he was posted as Constable Clerk at P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur and on that date on the application of Ram Sanehi he had prepared the Chik FIR Ext. Ka-4. Thereafter, he had made an endorsement in the G.D. Ext. Ka-5 at Serial No. 36. PW-3 Dr. Abdul Sattar Khan has stated in his statement on oath that on 21.10.2012 at about 3.45 P.M. he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the Smt. Ranno Devi w/o Ram Narayan Nishad aged about 28 years. Constable Prem Narayan Dubey and Constable Harish Chandra Yadav had brought the dead body from P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur. The mouth and eyes of the deceased were closed. The rigor mortis had passed on from upper limb and present in lower limb on the dead body of the deceased. 16. He has further stated that the following ante-mortem injury was found on the dead body of the deceased:- 17. Firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity deep on the back of left side of chest 5 cm. above the mid of blade of left scapula. Blackening present around the wound. 18. Underlying vessels and nerves were lacerated. The bullet entered from the back of left side chest then goes to trachea then goes to brain cavity. 19. On internal examination the base of skull (at the site of bullet) was found fractured. Brain and membranes were lacerated. In brain cavity about 50 Ml. Blood was present. Trachea and Bronchial Tree were lacerated at the site of entry of bullet. Blood clots present in Trachea. Both pale and left pleura was lacerated and about 150 Ml. Blood was present in the pleura cavity. The heart was empty. About 400 Ml. liquid material was present in the stomach. The small intestine was half filled with paste like material with gases. The large intestine was half filled with fecal matters and gases. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. The urinary bladder was partially filled and the remaining was as usual. The death of the deceased was about one day old. One large metallic bullet was recovered from the dead body of the deceased which was sealed in an envelope and sent to S.P. Fatehpur. Death of deceased was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem fire-arm injury. The death of the deceased was about one day old. One large metallic bullet was recovered from the dead body of the deceased which was sealed in an envelope and sent to S.P. Fatehpur. Death of deceased was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem fire-arm injury. The witness has proved the postmortem report as Ext. Ka-6. PW-4 S.I., Kamla Shanker Yadav had stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Asothar District-Fatehpur and on that date, he had received the investigation of Case Crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC relating to accused Ram Narayan Nishad @ Ramaina as the Station Officer was out of the police station, therefore, he had prepared the Parcha No.I in which he copied the Chik FIR, Tahrir, G.D. Registration of the case and recorded the statements of the FIR, its writer C.P. Abrar Hussain and informant of the case Ram Sanehi. In the night itself, he reached to the place of occurrence alongwith the informant and saw the dead body of the deceased but due to night inquest report could not be prepared, thereafter, leaving the Constables Prem Narayan Dubey and Harish Chandra on the spot for safety and security of the dead body, he alongwith other police personnel went to the house of the accused in village-Thuriyani, P.S. Kishunpur for search of the accused but he was not found there. He also searched the accused in the nearby villages but he was not found. On 21.10.2012 he again came back to the place of occurrence and appointed Panchas and thereafter prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-2 and other papers relating to postmortem of the deceased such as challanash, photonash,letter to C.M.O., Fatehpur and sample seal Ext. Ka-7 to Ka-10 respectively in his hand-writing and signature. On the same day, on the pointing out of the informant, he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan Ext. Ka-11. Thereafter, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses Munna Singh and Ram Swaroop. PW-5 Constable Rakesh Bahadur Singh had stated in his statement on oath that on 4.1.2013 he was posted as constable clerk at P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur and on that day on the basis of memo of arrest and recovery of country made pistol of 315 bore and one empty cartridge relating to Case Crime No.151/2012 under Section-302 IPC. PW-5 Constable Rakesh Bahadur Singh had stated in his statement on oath that on 4.1.2013 he was posted as constable clerk at P.S. Asothar, District-Fatehpur and on that day on the basis of memo of arrest and recovery of country made pistol of 315 bore and one empty cartridge relating to Case Crime No.151/2012 under Section-302 IPC. He had prepared the Chik FIR relating to Case Crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25 Arms Act, Ext. Ka-13 and made an endorsement in G.D. No. 27 Ext. Ka-14 dated 4.1.2013. PW-6 S.I. Lalmani Singh had stated in his statement on oath that on 4.1.2013 he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Asothar and on that day he had received the investigation of Case Crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25 Arms Act relating to accused and after completing the investigation he had submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-17 under Section-3/25 Arms Act against the accused. He has proved the sanction order dated 18.1.2013 for the prosecution in Case Crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25 Arms Act as Ext. Ka-17. PW-7 S.I. Shiv Mangal Singh Investigating Officer had stated in his statement on oath that on 22.10.2012, he had received the investigation of case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC from Kamla Shanker Yadav and perused the previous papers of the investigation related to investigation. On 31.10.2012 he had searched for the accused in his relations. On 8.11.2012 he had recorded the statements of Ram Sanehi and his wife Kushma Devi and also Kushma Devi w/o Shiv Kumar and also the witnesses of the inquest report Ram Sanehi, Shiv Kumar and Meghbaran and also searched for the accused. On 17.11.2012 he had recorded the statements of the witnesses of inquest report Prahlad and Gulab and constables Prem Narayan Dubey and Harish Chandra Yadav and also searched for the accused. During investigation on 4.1.2013 he had arrested the accused and on the information furnished by him recovered the weapon of crime. After returning to the police station he got registered the case in crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25 Arms Act at 5.30 P.M. He had prepared the site plan of the place of arrest of the accused and recovery of country made pistol Ext. Ka-18. After returning to the police station he got registered the case in crime No. 16/2013 under Section-3/25 Arms Act at 5.30 P.M. He had prepared the site plan of the place of arrest of the accused and recovery of country made pistol Ext. Ka-18. On 17.1.2013, Parcha No. XV was prepared in which he had recorded the statement of the witness Shiv Kumar, witness of memo of blood stained and simple earth and also the statement of Manoj Kumar, the writer of FIR. On 8.2.2013, Parcha No. XV was prepared in which he copied the papers regarding analysis of case materials and also recorded the statement of the Constable Akeel Ahmed Khan, who had handed over one sealed bundle of country made pistol and empty cartridge, one sealed container of blood stained earth, one sealed container of simple earth and 'Potli' of postmortem. After completing the investigation he had submitted the charge-sheet No. 19/2013 Ext. Ka-21 under Section-302 IPC against the accused therein he had also mentioned the criminal history of the accused. 20. In the case of Harish Chandra Bahri vs State of Bihar 1994 Criminal Law Journal 3271 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime." 21. So far as the motive to commit the murder of the deceased by the appellant-accused is concerned, the informant Ram Sanehi PW-1 had stated in his statement on oath that his son-in-law Ram Narayan was a person of criminal nature and he was residing at his house prior to one and a half months of the incident and his daughter Smt. Ranno Devi was rebuking him for his criminality and annoying from this, on 20.10.2012 at about 7.00-7.30 p.m. when his daughter was cooking food accused shot dead his daughter. The gun shot hit on her left shoulder (Pakhaura) and she died on the spot. 22. The appellant-accused was a person of criminal nature and this fact finds corroboration from the criminal history enumerated in the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-21 submitted by the Investigating Officer against him under Section-302 IPC. The appellant-accused was involved in as many as five criminal cases being case crime Nos. 208/2010 under Section-302 IPC, 205/2010 under Section-392/411 IPC, 8/2011, 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, 108/2012 under Section-110G Cr.P.C, and 279/2012 under Section-3/4 Goondas Act relating to P.S. Khaga and Kishunpur, District-Fatehpur. From the criminal history of the accused, it is crystal clear that appellant-accused is a person of criminal nature and there was every likelihood and it was natural to the deceased being a wife to rebuke her husband/appellant-accused for criminality and annoying from this, he shot dead the deceased by gun shot. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there was strong motive as alleged by the prosecution and, thus, the alleged motive stands established. 23. In the case of Ghulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) 2014 (1) ACR 24 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "The matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time- honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is a time- honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section-134 of the Evidence Act. Even in Probate cases, where the law requires the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that production of more witnesses does not carry any weight. Thus, conviction can even be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness, if the same inspires confidence." 24. As per FIR version wife of the informant Ram Sanehi PW-1 and his daughter-in-law were also present near the place of occurrence. It is true that both these eye-witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. In our opinion, it is not necessary that in all cases all the eye-witnesses to the incident should be examined and that too on the same point. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that non-examination the wife and daughter-in-law of informant is not fatal to the prosecution case because informant Ram Sanehi PW-1 is a reliable eye-witness, his testimony inspires confidence and fully supported the prosecution case. On the basis of the testimony of PW-1 we are convinced that appellant-accused had participated in committing the murder of the deceased by causing fire-arm injury on her body. Medical evidence corroborates the prosecution version as well as the testimony of PW-1 Ram Sanehi. In view of the above, we feel that conviction of the appellant-accused can be based on the testimony of aforesaid witness. PW-1 Ram Sanehi had stated in his statement on oath that when his daughter was shot dead then his neighbour did not arrive. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no question arises of producing the independent witnesses regarding the incident. 25. PW-1 Ram Sanehi had stated in his statement on oath that when his daughter was shot dead then his neighbour did not arrive. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no question arises of producing the independent witnesses regarding the incident. 25. In the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "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, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that 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. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 26. In the case of Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar 1996 CRL. L.J. 889, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently, being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case, AIR 1953 SC 364 in which this Court expressed its surprise over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses." 27. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case, AIR 1953 SC 364 in which this Court expressed its surprise over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses." 27. In the case of Shyam Babu vs. State of U.P. AIR 2012 SC 3311 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Where the presence of the eye-witnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence, it will not be permissible for the Court to discard the statement of such related or friendly witnesses. There is no bar in law on examining family members or any other person as witnesses. In fact, in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. If the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known to the parties affected is credible, reliable, trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party or friend etc". 28. In the case of Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors AIR 2013 SC 3681 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "The evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. Thus, natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. Thus, natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased." PW-1 Ram Sanehi, informant, had stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 at about 7.00 P.M. accused Ram Narayan had shot dead his daughter Ranno Devi by gun shot and at that time she was cooking food. The gun shot hit his daughter's left shoulder (Pakhaura). At the place of occurrence, there is a verandah and from verandah the kitchen is visible. In kitchen 'Diya' was lighting and there was light of the same. After hearing the sound of fire he alongwith his wife Kusma Devi reached to the place of occurrence and saw that the accused fled away towards the east having country made pistol in his hand. His daughter Ranno Devi died due to gun shot within five minutes. In his cross examination, he has stated that for the last one and a half months from the incident accused was residing with his daughter in his house separately. At the time of incident in question, he was at the door of his house and his daughter was cooking food towards east of the house where he was sitting and from where the place of gun shot was clearly visible because main door of both is one. He has also stated that his daughter was not residing at her matrimonial home because accused was committing assault with her. He has further stated that where his daughter was cooking food from there accused was near to her. PW-1 was put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited by way of cross-examination so as to create doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence. His testimony has been well supported by medical evidence. Appellant-accused is named in the FIR. PW-1 was put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited by way of cross-examination so as to create doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence. His testimony has been well supported by medical evidence. Appellant-accused is named in the FIR. Their is complete consistency and co-herence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witness, the name, time, date and place on which the offence was committed and by whom the offence was committed has been revealed in the FIR lodged by the aforesaid witness and the same find corroboration from the testimony of the aforesaid witness, which is also in co-herence with the story set up in the FIR. PW-4 S.I. Kamla Shanker Yadav had stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 he had received the investigation of case crime No. 151/2012 under Section-302 IPC relating to accused as the Station Officer was out of the police station, therefore he had prepared the Parcha No.1 in which he copied the Chik FIR, G.D. and recorded the statements of writer of the FIR, C.P. Abrar Hussain and informant Ram Sanehi. In the night itself, he reached to the place of occurrence alongwith the informant and saw the dead body but due to night inquest report could not be prepared. He had further stated that Parcha No. II was prepared on 21.10.2012. On this day he again came to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-2 and another papers relating to the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. On the same day on the pointing out of the informant he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-11. He had collected the blood stained and simple earth from the place of occurrence before the witnesses Ram Sanehi and Shiv Kumar and prepared the memo Ext. Ka-3. In our opinion testimony of aforesaid witness corroborates the prosecution version. PW-3 Dr. Abdul Sattar Khan had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Ranno Devi. According to the postmortem report Ext. Ka-6 only one firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the back of left side of chest 5 cm. above the mid of blade of left scapula was found. Blackening was present around the wound. According to the postmortem report Ext. Ka-6 only one firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the back of left side of chest 5 cm. above the mid of blade of left scapula was found. Blackening was present around the wound. The cause of death has been noted in the post mortem report due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem firearm injury. Thus, it is established that the deceased was shot dead by a single gun shot. 29. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution version as well as the testimony of PW-1 Ram Sanehi. 30. It is true that PW-1 Ram Sanehi is the father of the deceased and father-in-law of the appellant-accused. It is established from his testimony that prior to the alleged incident appellant-accused alongwith his wife Ranno Devi was residing in his house. It is not in dispute that place of occurrence is the house of the PW-1 Ram Sanehi. In our opinion, he is a natural witness and he has no motive to make false statements against the appellant-accused. It is also worth mentioning that a witness whose relative had been killed would not spare the real culprits and falsely implicate others. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of the aforesaid witness. Therefore, his testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that he is close relative of the deceased. PW-1 Ram Sanehi had stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 at about 7.00-7.30 P.M. after committing the crime accused escaped towards east alongwith Tamancha with country made fire-arm. PW-4 Kamla Shanker Yadav had also stated in his statement on oath that on 20.10.2012 after registration of case crime No.151/2012 under Section-302 IPC, he alongwith other police personnel went to the house of the accused in Village-Thuriyani, P.S. Kishunpur for search of the accused but he was not found. PW-7 Shiv Mangal Singh Yadav had stated in his statement on oath that on 22.10.2012, he received the investigation of the case crime No.151/2012 under Section-302 IPC from S.I. Kamla Shanker Yadav. He perused the previous papers and search for the accused. PW-7 Shiv Mangal Singh Yadav had stated in his statement on oath that on 22.10.2012, he received the investigation of the case crime No.151/2012 under Section-302 IPC from S.I. Kamla Shanker Yadav. He perused the previous papers and search for the accused. He had also stated that during investigation on 4.1.2013 accused was arrested by him. 31. In our opinion it is established from the testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses that after commission of alleged crime accused absconded and thereafter he was arrested by the police on 4.1.2013. In view of the provisions of Section-8 of the Indian Evidence Act, we are of the considered view that conduct of the appellant-accused shows that he was guilty conscious. PW-1 Ram Sanehi categorically denied the suggestion that because of alleged bad character of his daughter some unknown person shot her dead and on account of some evil design he named the accused Ram Narayan. It is relevant to mention here that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused in defense to substantiate his plea that apart the appellant-accused was examined under Section-313 Cr.P.C. with not even whisper in his examination that his wife Smt Ranno Devi (deceased) was not virtuous lady and some unknown person had committed her murder. In view of the prosecution evidence and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that defense version in regard to the character of the deceased and manner of occurrence is absurd. 32. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that testimony of all the prosecution witnesses supports the prosecution case, there is nothing on record to show if prosecution witness had any animus against the appellant-accused so as to implicate falsely in the present case. 33. In catena of decisions, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trial Court after going through entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the Appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. 34. After considering and critically appraising the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court are well substantiated from the evidence available on record. 34. After considering and critically appraising the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court are well substantiated from the evidence available on record. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective, we don't find any justification to interfere with the findings of convictions recorded by the trial Court. The findings of conviction recorded against the appellant-accused are being maintained and affirmed and no interference is being made in the sentence awarded to the appellant-accused. 35. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 36. Let a copy of this judgment and order alongwith original record be transmitted to the learned trial court for information. 37. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh shall be paid Rs.10,000/- for providing active assistance to the Court from the fund of State Legal Services Authority.