The importance of corroborative evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.1999 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 482 of 1987 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that fardbeyan of the deceased Siddique Ansari (Ext. 6) recorded by Sri M.N. Mishra, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW 17) on 27.1.1987 at about 11.45 p.m. at State Dispensary, Nawanagar disclosing that on the same date between 6 to 6.30 p.m., the deceased was coming back to his house after delivering Gur to the house of Islam Ansari, and when he reached near the house of Rahim Ansari, the appellant Kashim Ansari and co-accused Alimuddin Ansari (acquitted), all of a sudden, came in front of the deceased. The appellant Kashim Ansari armed with country made pistol shot fire at the deceased causing injury on his right Panjara. The deceased-informant fled towards the shop of Sheopujan Sao (PW 3) and fell down there. The deceased-informant narrated about the occurrence to Sheopujan Sao (PW 3) and Keshari Sao (not examined) about the occurrence and disclosed that the appellant Kashim Ansari had fled after firing. Bijali Yadav (PW 7), Rajendra Yadav (PW 8) and Manu Yadav (PW 10), all co-villagers carried the informant to Dr. Sultan (not examined) for treatment of his injuries, whereafter the co-villager Lallan Singh (PW 2), Moti Yadav (PW 1) and Abdul Hakim Ansari (PW 6), the son of the deceased, carried the informant on a cot to Nawanagar State Dispensary where he was being treated. The motive for the alleged occurrence was stopping the work of barbar by the deceased to appellant Kashim Mian and co-accused Alimuddin Ansari as they were not giving wages to the informant for which some altercation had taken place between them. Both of them had threatened the informant to kill him. The informant got the fardbeyan read over to witnesses Moti Singh (PW 1) and Lallan Singh (PW 2) and having found them correct, both the witnesses put their signature on the jarc1beyan and the informant also signed the fardbeyan.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 6) a formal FIR (Ext. 8) was drawn up on 28.1.1987 at about 2 pm. and the case was registered against both the accused. It appears that the injured-informant Saddique Ansari was referred to Arwal Sadar Hospital where he was declared dead, as such Section 302, IPC was added. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the co-accused Alimuddin Ansari for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Session. Charges were framed against both the accused under Section 302/34, IPC and the appellant was further charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty, as such the trial proceeded. After trial, the appellant has been convicted as aforesaid and co-accused Alimuddin Ansari has been acquitted.

4. The prosecution has examined altogether 17 witnesses in support of its charge, out of them PW 1 Moti Singh, PW 2 Lalan Singh, PW 3 Sheo Pujan Sah were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 4 Nasiran is the wife of the deceased-informant who claims to have witnessed the alleged occurrence. PW 5 Hamidan has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 6 Abdul Habib, is the son of the deceased who is said to have arrived after his father sustained injuries. PW 7 Bijuli Singh and PW 8 Rajendra Singh Yadav are said to have accompanied the injured to the hospital. PW 9 Ramsidhi Singh, village chaukidar, has been declared hostile. PW 10 Manu Singh and PW 11 Dasai Mahto claimed to have learned about the name of the assailant from the deceased. PW 12 Bachha Singh, and PW 13 Bijay K