The judgment emphasizes the importance of evaluating the credibility and consistency of evidence, particularly eyewitness testimonies, in cases involving serious criminal offenses. It also underscores the court's duty to ensure that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is met, while considering the inherent probabilities and improbabilities in the evidence presented.

Judgment

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- One Jairam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was in his early teens when he lost his life in an unfortunate dispute where his relatives were the warring parties. There were originally four accused persons, namely, Madan Rai (A-I), Rasbehari (A-2), Sachidanand Rai (A-3) and Janardan Rai (A-4). Accused Madan Rai is the father of Sachidanand and Rasbehari. Accused Madan Rai was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") for committing the murder of the deceased and the other three were charged by application of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. All the four accused persons were also charged in terms of Section 440 IPC for committing mischief having made preparation to cause hurt.

2. The date of occurrence is 11-5-1984. The dispute arose over fixing of a door by Ramakant (appellant in Crl. As. Nos. 2032-33 of 1996). By infliction of a gunshot injury the deceased breathed his last on 12-5-1984. According to Siyaram (PW 1), the informant, the incident which took life of the deceased was the result of a long-standing dispute over properties. There was a private partition between the deceaseds father and his offsprings and accused Madan Rai a few years before the occurrence. Madan Rai wanted to take the northern room out of the rooms in which cattle were tethered and which was falling to share of Siyaram, the informant. Though the door of this room had been removed earlier, the informant wanted to close the door by constructing a mud wall. On the date of occurrence at about 6.30 p.m. the accused Madan Rai came with his licensed gun to the spot of occurrence with his sons Sachidanand, Rasbehari and Janardan. Three of them were armed with lathis.

They started demolishing the walls. The present appellant Ramakant Rai and Siyaram and the deceased requested them not to do so. Madan Rai took out his gun and fired one shot. Sound of such gunfire attracted notice of many including Bashisht Pandey (PW 2), Bhimnath Rai (PW 5) and many other villagers who came to his house, particularly, to the room to find out what has happened. The informant, the deceased and others came to the room where the informants cattle were tethered. Accused Madan Rai climbed on the roof to the western corner of the house with his gun. The deceased was at the door of the room which was towards the north-west of his house. Madan Rai fired one gunshot which resulted in injuries on the face of the deceased who fell down. According to the informant the ghastly incident was witnessed by Bashisht Pandey (PW 2), Bhimnath Rai (PW 5) and the neighbours. As the condition of the deceased deteriorated, he was taken in a tractor to the hospital at Mohammadbad, information was lodged at the police station, and investigation was undertaken. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was placed.

3. Considering the evidence on record the trial court found accused Madan Rai guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the offence relatable to under Section 302 IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 440 IPC imprisonment for a term of two years with a fine of Rs 500 was imposed. The other three accused were acquitted of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, they were held guilty relation to Section 440 IPC. The convicted accused persons filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court which by the impugned judgment found the prosecution version to be wanting in credibility and adequacy and direct acquittal. The States appeal against acquittal of three was rejected.

4. According to the High Court, there was manipulation so far as the time of occurrence in the FIR is concerned. Originally, the same appears to have been written at 7.30 p.m. and subsequently corrected to 6.30 p.m., obviously, with a view to make visibility and identification possible. There was not motive to kill the young boy, as the accepted position seemed to be that n