The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and the promptness of the prosecution's case to establish guilt in a murder trial.

B.N.P.Singh, J.

1. To appreciate contentions raised, factual matrix, which are not in much details, can be noticed with brevity. As rain water had accumulated in courtyard of Kamleshwari Yadav, Vivekanand Yadav, deceased, was digging channel for outlet of the accumulated water. Allegedly, appellants along with Bimla Devi, resisted Vivekanand Yadav, pursuant to which a wordy duel ensued between them. Bimla Devi, it was alleged, brought a pistol from her house and supplied the same to Chandradip Yadav, pursuant to which on exhortation made by both Bimla Devi and Santlal Yadav, Chandradip Yadav, fired shots on Vivekanand Yadav and in his bid to escape, he suffered another shot in his abdomen when Chandradip Yadav fired shots. Injured Vivekanand Yadav dropped injured near the shop of Mahendra Sao. As he was critical, he was carried to Primary Health Centre, Dharhara, from where he was referred to Munger hospital. It was alleged that while Vivekanand Yadav was being carried to Munger hospital, he succumbed to injuries in the midway. However, he was taken to Munger hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctor.

2. Though prosecution was launched against three persons including the appellants, only appellants were put on trial. Police Officer during investigation, recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited place of occurrence, seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, secured autopsy report and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, State examined altogether seven witnesses and though the appellants had not outnumbered the State, they too examined six witnesses at trial, ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to the appellants. Defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. Explicit defence of the appellants was that when Vivekanand Yadav was digging, channel in front of house of Chandradip Yadav for drainage of water, Chandradip Yadav had registered protest and when Vivkanand Yadav, deceased, wanted to assault him, Chandradip Yadav had made good his escape, and in process of chase when Kamleshwari Yadav fired shots on Chandradip Yadav, aim was lost and it is how that Vivekanand Yadav sustained firearm injuries on his person. Trial Court, however, on appreciation of probative value of testimony of witnesses, while rejecting plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), simpliciter against Chandradip Yadav, Santlal Yadav too suffered conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC, and both the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. Two-fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the findings recorded by the Court below against the impugned judgment. Contentions were raised that though the doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased had noticed two entry wounds on the dead body of the deceased, if evidence of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh (DW 6) was to be given credence, injury Nos 1, 2 and 3 may not be possible by different shots, and taking recourse to omission on part of PW 2 about witness not making parallel statement before the Police, for second shot allegedly fired by the assailants, would urge that evidence of ocular witnesses was not in conformity with the finding of the doctor. Unable to offer any meaningful criticism, submission is that if Vivekanand Yadav succumbed to the injuries in midway while being carried to Munger hospital, there did not appear to be good reason for carrying dead body to Munger hospital. Other ground on which finding of the Court below was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the trial Court while appreciating intrinsic value of the witnesses had totally overlooked evidence of defence witnesses which strongly militates agai