JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. This appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 08.06.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1990, convicting the appellant under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 of IPC, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. As per prosecution case, deceased Kashi was a rickshaw puller and on 11.08.1988 at about 12:00 in the afternoon, when he was returning to his house for having his meal, accused appellant Khania and the absconded accused Munna and Radhey stopped and asked him to transport stolen railways articles, however, the deceased refused to the said request. Hearing the reply of the deceased, accused persons got annoyed with him and threatened him for dire consequences. It is said that on 13.08.1988 at about 2:00 a.m., when deceased Kashi was sleeping in his house along with his wife Dasi (PW-2), children, whereas his father Jagarnath (PW-1) was sleeping at the western side of the courtyard, accused persons including the appellant gained entry in his house, pulled the deceased out, absconded accused persons caught hold of him, whereas the accused appellant caused a gunshot injury on his chest, resulting his instantaneous death. It is said that when Jagarnath (PW-1), father of the deceased, tried to save his son, he too was subjected to firearm injury. At 6:45 in the morning, FIR (Ex.Ka.15) was lodged by PW-1 against the appellant and absconded accused persons under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 of IPC. Inquest on the dead body was conducted vide Ex. Ka.4 on 13.08.1988 and on the same day, injured Jagarnath (PW-1) was medically examined vide Ex. Ka.3 by Dr. Umesh Chand Sharma (PW-4). 3. Body of the deceased was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 14.08.1988 by Dr. C.B. Tripathi (PW-3) vide Ex.Ka.-2. As per Autopsy Surgeon, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased: "1. Gunshot wound of entrance 2cm x 21/2cm over front right side of chest 12cm outer to midline and 7cm below sternal notch. Blackening and tattooing present over front of both sides of chest and front and outer aspect of right forearm, elbow and lower Lt. of arm. Margins lacerated and inverted. Gunshot wound of entrance 2cm x 21/2cm over front right side of chest 12cm outer to midline and 7cm below sternal notch. Blackening and tattooing present over front of both sides of chest and front and outer aspect of right forearm, elbow and lower Lt. of arm. Margins lacerated and inverted. The Missiles had passed through chest wall fracturing third right coastal cartilage and adjacent sternal bone right border, perforated pericardium, both sides abrasion pulmonary arteries and veins and superior angle tissue over vena cava perforated both sides lungs, pleura pressed towards left, perforated pleura and fracture 6th and 7th left side ribs on back." According to autopsy surgeon, cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to heart and lungs. 4. But for accused appellant, other accused persons remained absconded and therefore, after filing of charge-sheet, the accused appellant was tried for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 of IPC. 5. So as to hold the accused appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication. 6. By the impugned judgment, the trial judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits: (i) that accused appellant has been falsely implicated at the instance of one Ram Dayal, who was having illicit relation with Dasi (PW-2). (ii) that statements of Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) are not reliable and the same are self contradictory. (iii) that as per medical report of the deceased, only one gunshot injury was found on his body and, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC and, at best, he can be convicted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. (iv) that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) being interested witnesses, are required to be ignored. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State counsel: (i) that there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statements of Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2), who appear to be natural eye-witnesses. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State counsel: (i) that there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statements of Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2), who appear to be natural eye-witnesses. (ii) that incident occurred at 2:00 a.m. on 13.08.1988 inside the house and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no outsider could have been present in the house and, therefore, statements of Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) alone appear to be justified. (iii) that the manner in which the deceased was done to death clearly proves the case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. (iv) that the medical report of Jagarnath (PW-1) also supports the prosecution case. (v) that the manner in which the offence has been committed, under no circumstances, it can be diluted for the offence under Section 304 of IPC. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Jagarnath (PW-1), is a father of the deceased Kashi, states that his son was a rickshaw puller, whereas accused-appellant is resident of Taranpur. A few days prior to the incident, when he was in the godown, deceased came to him and informed that accused appellant and other accused persons were asking him to transport stolen articles by offering unlimited money and when he refused to do so, he was abused and threatened by the appellant and other accused persons. He states that the deceased also informed this fact to his wife Dasi (PW-2). On the day of incident, i.e. in the night intervening 12/13.8.1988, he was sleeping in the courtyard of his house, whereas deceased was sleeping in another room along with his wife and children. In the courtyard, an earthen lamp was burning and he saw that deceased was pulled out from his room, two persons were holding the deceased and then appellant fired on his chest. He states that the incident occurred in the courtyard. He has further stated that the incident has also been witnessed by Dasi (PW-2), wife of the deceased. He has further stated that absconded accused Munna fired aiming him as a result of which he suffered pellet injury. After hearing his shout and the shout of his family members, accused persons fled away from the spot. He has further stated that the incident has also been witnessed by Dasi (PW-2), wife of the deceased. He has further stated that absconded accused Munna fired aiming him as a result of which he suffered pellet injury. After hearing his shout and the shout of his family members, accused persons fled away from the spot. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm and has reiterated as to the manner in which the incident occurred. He has further clarified that earthen lamp was burning and there was sufficient light. 11. Dasi (PW-2) is a wife of the deceased, who at the time of occurrence, was sleeping with him. While supporting the prosecution case, she too has stated that her husband was done to death by the appellant, who caused gunshot injury on his chest. She has also stated that earthen lamp was burning. In cross-examination, this witness also remained very firm and has not said anything, which may be of any help to the defence. She has further clarified that she knew the appellant very well as in the same area her sister is residing. 12. Dr. C.B. Tripathi (PW-3) conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and has proved the gunshot injury sustained by the deceased. According to him, cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to heart and lungs. 13. Dr. Umesh Chand Sharma (PW-4) medically examined the injured Jagarnath (PW-1) vide Ex.Ka.3 and the following injuries were found on his body. "(1) Firearm injury - wound of entry, circular in outline, two in nos. margin inverted, scorching and tattooing present with swelling around 31/2 cms x 1cm around on right side of scalp front side 5cm above right eye brow, singeing of hairs present, contact wound. (2) Firearm injury - wound of entry - circular in outline, margin inverted, scorching and tattooing present on right side face 1cm outer to lateral angle of Rt. eye. (3) Firearm injury - wound of entry, multiple in nos. in the area 19cm x 12cm on the back of Rt. upper arm, Elbow joint and forearm circular in out line, inverted margin, scorching & tattooing present. - injuries are simple and caused by firearm- duration - fresh. - X ray advised to show the presence of pellets." 14. Bankey Bihari Singh (PW-5) is an Investigating Officer, has duly supported the prosecution case. upper arm, Elbow joint and forearm circular in out line, inverted margin, scorching & tattooing present. - injuries are simple and caused by firearm- duration - fresh. - X ray advised to show the presence of pellets." 14. Bankey Bihari Singh (PW-5) is an Investigating Officer, has duly supported the prosecution case. Dina Nath Sharma (PW-6) is a constable, has recorded the FIR and Rajnath Yadav (PW-7) is a constable, who had assisted during investigation. 15. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 11.08.1988, there was some hot talk between the deceased and the accused persons and the deceased was threatened for dire consequences. In the night intervening 12/13.8.1988, the accused appellant along with other accused persons gained entry in the house of the deceased. The other accused persons pulled out the deceased from his room, caught hold of him, and then appellant caused gunshot injury on his chest, resulting his instantaneous death. Incident has been witnessed by Jagarnath (PW-1), father of the deceased and Dasi (PW-2), wife of the deceased. Both these witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case and have categorically stated that they saw the accused appellant committing murder of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 have been duly supported by the postmortem report of the deceased. Most importantly, in the incident Jagarnath (PW-1) also suffered injury and his injury has also been proved by Dr. Umesh Chand Sharma (PW-4) vide Ex.Ka.3. 16. We find no substance in the argument of the defence that the statements of Jagarnath (PW-1) and Dasi (PW-2) are not reliable and the same are self contradictory, and they being interested witnesses, their statements are required to be ignored. As per prosecution case, both these witnesses were present in the house, there was sufficient light of earthen lamp, and they saw the accused appellant committing murder of the deceased and the evidence of both these witnesses have been duly supported by the postmortem report of the deceased. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the statements of these two witnesses, who appear to be natural eye-witnesses. They appear to be trustworthy and their statements inspire the confidence of the Court. Their testimony cannot be discarded simply on the ground that they, being the father and wife of the deceased respectively, are interested witnesses. Law in this respect is very clear. They appear to be trustworthy and their statements inspire the confidence of the Court. Their testimony cannot be discarded simply on the ground that they, being the father and wife of the deceased respectively, are interested witnesses. Law in this respect is very clear. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of an interested witness should not be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. All that the Courts required as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, was that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care. It has to be realized that related and interested witness would be the last persons to screen the real culprits and falsely substitute innocent ones in their places. Indeed there may be circumstances where only interested evidence may be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence takes place at midnight in the house when the only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be the family members. In such cases, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. But once such witness was scrutinized with a little care and the Court was satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. 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. (See Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 ; State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456 ; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. vs. State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC 206 ; Dahari & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 256 ; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701 ; Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Jodhan vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52 . 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 256 ; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701 ; Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Jodhan vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52 . 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhakar vs. State, (2018) AIR SC 1372 and Ganapathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) AIR SC 1635 relying in its earlier judgments held as under: "18. Then, next comes the question 'what is the difference between a related witness and an interested witness?. The plea of "interested witness", "related witness" has been succinctly explained by this Court that "related" is not equivalent to "interested". The witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. In this case at hand PW 1 and 5 were not only related witness, but also 'interested witness' as they had pecuniary interest in getting the accused petitioner punished. [refer State of U.P. v. Kishanpal and Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 ] : (2008 AIR SCW 6322). As the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses, it would be prudent in the facts and circumstances of this case to be cautious while analyzing such evidence. It may be noted that other than these witnesses, there are no independent witnesses available to support the case of the prosecution." Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. A witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. A close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole testimony of such witness. (See - Harbans Kaur and another vs. State of Haryana, (2005) AIRSCW 2074; Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) AIRSCW 1835; Sonelal vs. State of M.P., (2008) AIRSCW 7988; and Dharnidhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals, (2010) 7 SCC 759 ). 18. We find no substance in the argument of defence that as per medical report, only one gunshot injury was found on the body of the deceased and, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC and at best he can be convicted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. As per prosecution case, it is the appellant, who fired gunshot injury on the appellant, resulting his instantaneous death and the manner in which the deceased was done to death clearly proves the case against the appellant under Section 302 and therefore, he cannot be convicted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. 19. In the case of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 4 SCC 329 , following parameters have been laid down by the Apex Court as to whether a case would fall under Section 302 or Section 304 of IPC. 19. In the case of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 4 SCC 329 , following parameters have been laid down by the Apex Court as to whether a case would fall under Section 302 or Section 304 of IPC. (a) The circumstances in which the incident took place; (b) The nature of weapon used; (c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the spot; (d) Whether the assault was aimed on vital part of body; (e) The amount of the force used; (f) Whether the deceased participated in the sudden fight; (g) Whether there was any previous enmity; (h) Whether there was any sudden provocation; (i) Whether the attack was in the heat of passion; and (j) Whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue advantage or acted in the cruel or unusual manner. 20. It is not a case where appellant had caused gunshot injury on non-vital part of the body of the deceased but he chose the vital part of the body, i.e. chest of the deceased and, therefore, under no stretch of imagination, his case would fall under Section 304 of IPC. 21. Taking cumulative effect of the evidence and after due appreciation thereof, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and we find no infirmity in the judgment impugned. 22. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled and he be taken into custody immediately to serve the remaining sentence.