Mridula Mishra, J.

1. The sole appellant has been convicted by the 5th Additional District and Session Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 1999 by judgment and order dated 5.8.2000/ 8.8.2000, under Section 302 of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Further he has been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2. On the basis of fardbeyan of Gauri Shankar Verma recorded by the Officer-in- charge of Bhagan Bigha O.P. on 24.8.1999 at 10.30 p.m. the case was instituted against the appellant. In the fardbeyan it was stated by the informant that he along with his brother-in-law Arjun Kumar Verma had gone on a scooter to Sohsarai at 6 p.m. to purchase some clothes. They purchased clothes from Nancy Textile and Shri Tarni Textile and they returned back to village Patasang at about 9 P.M. He saw Pramod Kumar Verma standing in front of his darwaja, when reached near the house. The informant came down from the scooter. He took the bundle of the clothes and went towards the door. His brother- in-law parked his scooter and was coming towards the house at that very time Pramod Kumar Verma opened fire which hit Arjun Kumar Verma in the stomach. Arjun Kumar Verma fell down and shouted that Pramod has shot him. The informant tried to catch hold of Arjun Kumar Verma in the meantime Pramod Kumar Verma ran away towards the western road. Several villagers heard the sound of firing and assembled there. They saw Arjun Kumar Verma in injured condition. Arjun Kumar Verma was brought to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif where doctors declared him dead. The motive behind the occurrence is said to be the dispute regarding partition of the house for which the case was being contested in the Court.

3. The case was registered against the sole appellant. It was investigated and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On submission of charge- sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined all together ten witnesses. Out of these 10 witnesses, PW 8, and PW 4 have been examined as eye-witnesses. PW 1 is the wife of deceased, who is hearsay witness. PW 2 the father of the deceased and PW 3 the brother of the deceased have only deposed that they heard that Arjun was killed and they saw the dead body. They have not stated anything as to who killed him. PW 5, PW 6 and PW 9 have been declared hostile. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer of this case and PW 7 is Dr. S.B. Sharan who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The defence has also examined one witness namely Ashok Kumar Singh who has proved the signature of Pramod Kumar Verma on the complaint petition.

5. It is an admitted case that in the night of 24.2.1999 at about 9 p.m. Arjun Kumar was killed, but the defence of the appellant is that he has falsely been implicated because of dispute regarding partition of house and property.

6. PW 1 Manju Devi is the wife of the deceased and a hearsay witness. She has said that at the time of occurrence she was not present in her house at village Patasang. On 24.21999 at 6 O clock she went to her fathers house at Bajitpur. She was at Bajitpur when she was informed by her brother PW 8 that Arjun Kumar Verma has been killed by Pramod Kumar Verma. She came to village Patasan on 25.2.1999 at 7 Oclock in the morning. Her son PW 4 also disclosed before her that Paramod Kumar Verma had fired at her husband and he died due to the injuries received by him. She has stated that occurrence took place because of some dispute regarding partition of the residential house. She has stated that prior to the occurrence her husband had filed an informatory petition before the SDO that he apprehended danger to his life at the instance of the appellant and o