JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act dated 17.03.2008 and the order of sentence of R.I for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-under section 302 IPC and R.I for Three years and fine of Rs.5000/-under section 27 of the Arms Act dated 18.03.2008 passed against him in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 2. The appellant is the husband of the deceased, namely, Suchitra Kalindi. He has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of his wife with fire-arm. 3. The informant of this case, namely, Baijanti Kalindi is the mother of Suchitra Kalindi, the deceased. On the basis of her fardbeyan which was recorded in the morning of 26.06.2007, Jhinkpani P.S Case No. 30 of 2007 was lodged against the appellant. The informant has stated that in the morning of 25.06.2007 her daughter asked her husband to go to ACC Factory at Jhinkpani to attend his duty, however, he refused to go there and asked his wife to give him Rs.1000/-as he had to go to Chaibasa. His wife gave him Rs.1000/-and thereafter he left saying that he is going to Chaibasa. The daughter of the informant was married to the appellant about seven years back and for about one year her daughter lived in her in-laws house (sasural), but when she was carrying 6-7 months pregnant she came to her parents' house. After she gave birth to a child she again went to her matrimonial home, however, she came back to her parents' home as her husband was not providing proper treatment to her. The informant has stated that whenever the appellant asked her daughter to join him in her matrimonial home she had refused saying that he does not provide proper treatment to her and about ten days prior to the date of occurrence the appellant committed maarpit with her daughter and slapped her. In the night of 25.06.2007 when the appellant did not return home they retired to bed and her daughter slept in the adjoining room. At about 2:00 a.m in the night, on hearing sound like fire-cracker when she woke up she saw her son-in-law fleeing away with a pistol in his hand after committing murder of her daughter. In the night of 25.06.2007 when the appellant did not return home they retired to bed and her daughter slept in the adjoining room. At about 2:00 a.m in the night, on hearing sound like fire-cracker when she woke up she saw her son-in-law fleeing away with a pistol in his hand after committing murder of her daughter. She tried to catch hold of him by his shirt but somehow he fled away. On raising hullah her husband came and he also raised hullah, however, nobody came there. They saw a fire-arm injury on the forehead of their daughter, the blood was oozing out and she was writhing in pain and after sometime she died. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses; the informant, namely, Baijanti Kalindi is P.W.1 and her husband, namely, Bharat Kalindi is P.W.2. 5. Dr. Swapan Kumar Singh-P.W10, who has conducted the post-mortem examination at about 1.30 p.m on 26.06.2007, has found a lacerated wound of the size of 2” x 3/4”, intracranial deep and directed towards down from the right side of forehead. A bullet was found in the right side of the neck muscle which was removed and handed over to the police. According to the doctor, the death has occurred within 12 to 48 hours of the post-mortem examination. 6. The other prosecution witnesses – P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 – are not the eye-witness but they have supported the prosecution's case on material parts; P.W.7 has been declared hostile. 7. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that; (i) there is no eye-witness to the actual occurrence, (ii) testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed murder of Suchitra Kalindi, his wife, (iii) the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on source of light is inconsistent, (iv) neither the crime weapon was recovered nor FSL report on the blood-stained soil and danda was produced and while so, the prosecution has failed to connect the appellant with the crime, and (v) P.W.1 and P.W.2 are interested witnesses whose evidence is not corroborated by any independent witness. 8. The informant is examined in the court as P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that in the night of the occurrence when her family members were sleeping the appellant came and shot dead his wife. 8. The informant is examined in the court as P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that in the night of the occurrence when her family members were sleeping the appellant came and shot dead his wife. She has stated about his second marriage, her daughter refusing to go with him, hearing sound like fire-cracker, her catching hold of the appellant by his shirt, the appellant holding a pistol in his hand and his fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The prosecution has projected the husband of the informant, namely, Bharat Kalindi-P.W.2 as another eye-witness. P.W.2 has also deposed that in the afternoon at about 4:00 p.m his son-in-law asked Rs.1000/-from his daughter and when she gave him money he left home. In the night at about 1 a.m when he was sleeping the appellant killed his daughter and when he woke up he found that his wife had caught hold of the appellant who was holding a pistol in his hand, however, somehow he managed to flee away. The prosecution witnesses – P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 – have deposed in the court that they were informed that the appellant has killed his wife with a fire-arm. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are inquest witnesses; P.W.5 is also a witness to the fardbeyan of the informant. The first investigating officer of the case has stated that by the time charge of the investigation was given to another officer, he had not recorded statement of any witness. The main investigating officer of this case is Shankar Mahto-P.W.9. He has stated that he has prepared inquest report, seized the blood-stained soil and danda. He has inspected the place of occurrence and given a description of the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in the inquest report he has written cause of death, as death by pistol. 9. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of Suchitra Kalindi. At the time of the occurrence their daughter was staying with them. Their presence in their house is natural and they are the competent witnesses. In fact, during their cross-examination there is no serious challenge by the defence to their presence in their house in the fateful night. 9. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of Suchitra Kalindi. At the time of the occurrence their daughter was staying with them. Their presence in their house is natural and they are the competent witnesses. In fact, during their cross-examination there is no serious challenge by the defence to their presence in their house in the fateful night. From their evidence the prosecution has proved presence of the appellant in their house, the appellant holding a pistol in his hand, the informant trying to catch hold of him and finally his escape from the place of occurrence. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that she was sleeping on the varanda and her daughter was sleeping inside the room. She has asserted that her statement was recorded by the police and on 25.06.2007 the appellant had visited her home. P.W.2 has also deposed on the similar lines. He has also spoken about presence of the appellant in his house in the night, holding a pistol and his wife trying to apprehend him. 10. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that identification of the appellant by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is doubtful, particularly, in view of their evidence on the source of light. We find that P.W.2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that there was electric light, however, his wife has stated that it was a dark night ( jkr dks ?kVuk ds le; v/aksjk Fkk ). All that can be gathered from the evidence of P.W.1 is that the night in which the occurrence has taken place was a dark night. Moreover, while examining veracity of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 what has to be kept in mind is that they are the rustic villagers; it is apparent from the cross-examination of P.W.1 who has failed to give the day and date of the occurrence. The appellant is the son-in-law and thus known to them and, therefore, if at all there is any inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, identification of the appellant by them in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2007 in their house cannot be doubted [refer, “State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dr. M. V. Ramana Reddy and Others” reported in (1991) 4 SCC 536 ]. Dr. M. V. Ramana Reddy and Others” reported in (1991) 4 SCC 536 ]. It has come in the prosecution's evidence that the appellant was staying with his fufi who also lives in the same village and for about last three months he was living in the informant's house. In the night he did not return home before P.W.1 and P.W.2 had gone to bed; P.W.1 has stated that before she went to sleep she was waiting for her son-in-law. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it appears that in the night when everybody had gone to sleep, the appellant sneaked in the house and killed his wife but before he could flee away he was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.1 had tried to catch hold of him, however, somehow he has managed to escape. May be they have not seen the appellant firing shot on their daughter, the narration of the incident as described by them would indicate that it all has happened in a very short span of time. The appellant, who was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2 moments after firing of shot on Suchitra Kalindi, was holding a pistol in his hand and P.W.1 tried to catch hold of him and P.W.2 has also seen him in his house with a pistol in his hand at that time. There was no other intervening circumstance and during their cross-examination no suggestion was put to P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Suchitra Kalindi has died otherwise than by a fire shot. The medical evidence confirms that Suchitra Kalindi has died due to the injury caused by fire shot. In his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, this evidence was specifically put to him, however, the appellant has simply denied this. The First Information Report was lodged early in the morning at about 8:00 a.m and the post-mortem examination was held at 1.30 p.m on 26.06.2007, that is, within 12 hours of the occurrence. These events would eliminate possibility of false implication of the appellant. These facts are sufficient to hold that it was the appellant who has killed Suchitra Kalindi with a fire-arm. These events would eliminate possibility of false implication of the appellant. These facts are sufficient to hold that it was the appellant who has killed Suchitra Kalindi with a fire-arm. May be, the relationship between the appellant and the family of the informant was not good and P.W.1 and P.W. 2 are highly interested witnesses, but then, their testimony on complicity of the appellant in the crime is cogent, consistent and reliable; evidence of interested witnesses can be relied [refer, “Dalip Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab” reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 ]. 11. In the above state of evidence, we find that presence of the appellant in the house of the informant at the time of the occurrence is proved. The other incriminating circumstances which stand proved from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 unerringly establish the charge under section 302 IPC. The doctor has opined that the death has occurred due to fire-arm injury and while so, conviction of the appellant under section 27 of the Arms Act is also affirmed. 12. In the above facts, having examined the materials on record, we do not find any error in the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2007 and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2008 is dismissed. 13. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX. 14. Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.