The quality of evidence matters more than quantity, and the testimony of a single eye-witness can be relied upon if found to be entirely reliable.

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

This appeal arises out of impugned judgement and order dated 03.12.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2007 (State Vs. Iqbal Khan & Anr.), convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 307/34 & 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in case of default thereof, one year additional imprisonment and under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 16,000/-, in default thereof, one year additional imprisonment.

2. As per prosecution case, deceased Aurangzeb Khan, aged about 23 years was having an illicit relation with the second wife of accused-appellant Iqbal Khan as a result of which, on 25.04.2006 at about 9:00 P.M., accused-appellant Iqbal and the acquitted accused Imran Khan committed murder of the deceased by a country made pistol. It is said that on 25.04.2006 at 9:00 P.M., deceased Aurangzeb Khan was playing a game, known in the village as 'dominus' along with his friends. Accused-appellant reached there and caused firearm injury to the deceased on his back resulting his instantaneous death. Firearm injury was also sustained by PW-2 Mohd. Aasif Khan, who was sitting along with the deceased but the said injured witness has not supported the prosecution case. The incident has been witnessed by PW-3 Hasina Khatoon, mother of the deceased, who came out from her house to call the deceased for a dinner. At the instance of PW-3, at 10:00 P.M., on the basis of written report Ex.Ka.1., F.I.R. Ex.Ka.2 was registered against the appellant Iqbal Khan, acquitted accused Imran Khan and two other persons under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC. After preparing inquest, body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by PW-7 Dr. Anil Kumar on 26.04.2006 vide Ex.Ka.6.

3. As per Autopsy Surgeon, following injuries have been found on the body of the deceased:

"(i) Wound of Entry: Oval in shape 1 cm x 1 cm with collar of abrasion + margin inverted.

(ii) Blackening + Tattooing in the area of 10 x 12 cm around the wound on the rt. back, 15 cm below shoulder and 3 cm from midline.

(iii) Wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm on the lt. chest anterior side, 6 cm above and medial to lt. nipple, margins everted and wound communicate to entry wound."

4. The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem firearm injury.

5. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against two accused persons under Sections 307/34 and 302/34 of IPC.

6. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined ten witnesses, whereas three defence witnesses have also been examined. Statement of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

7. By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has acquitted co-accused Imran Khan of all the offences, whereas the appellant has been convicted under Sections 307/34 and 302/34 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits:

(i) that once on the same set of evidence, accused-appellant Imran Khan has been acquitted, the same benefit ought to have been given to the present appellant.

(ii) that PW-2 Mohd. Aasif Khan having been declared hostile, offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. has not been proved by the prosecution.

(iii) that after the acquittal of co-accused Imran Khan, appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C.

(iv) that PW-3 Haseena Khatoon is not an eye-witness to the incident and has been planted as an eye-witness after the incident. It cannot be a co-incident that when PW-3 had come to call her son for a dinner, the incident takes place. In fact, presence of PW-3 itself is doubted at the place of occurrence.

(v) that there was no sufficient source of light at the