The prosecution must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, and doubts in witness identification, contradictions, and absence of crucial evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused.

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

The present appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.4. 1993 and order of sentence dated 1.5.1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1987 (arising out of Bairia P.S. Case No. 14 of 1986) by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah.

2. By the said judgment the appellant herein has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed, in default whereof the appellant was to undergo R.I. for one year.

3. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Ram Deo Bin (Father of the deceased), an FIR vide Bairia P.S. Case No. 14 of 1986 was registered on 16.03.1986 under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. It was alleged by the informant that in the preceding night at about mid-night while he was sleeping at his home along with his younger son, namely, Anwat Bin and the lantern was lit, some people came inside the house and he saw in the light of the lantern that his co-villagers, namely, Shaukat Mian, Bande Mian, Barkat Mian and Tabdin Mian were carrying gun and three persons were standing outside, namely, Rustam Mian, Durgami Mian, and Mahmood Mian who were carrying lathi in their hand. Thereafter, Shaukat Mian pointed the gun on the chest of the informant and Bande Mian caught his legs while Barkat Mian and Tabdin Mian dragged the son of the informant and took him outside the door and fired from their gun. It has been further stated by the informant that the accused persons who had caught the informant, left him and went outside the house whereafter the informant also came out of the house and saw that his son was writhing. All the accused persons, after firing gun shots, ran away towards the northern side. When the informant went near his son he saw sign of injury on his chest from which blood was oozing out and after sometime the son of the informant died. After hearing the sound the co-villagers, namely Ali Hasan Mian, Bindeshwari Sah, Mutlal Bin, Bodha Bin and other people arrived. The informant disclosed the motive to be old enmity. The FIR was lodged against seven persons, namely, (1) Shaukat Mian (since deceased); (2) Barkat Mian; (3) Bande Mian (acquitted); (4) Tabdin Mian (acquitted); (5) Rustam Mian (acquitted); (6) Durgami Mian (acquitted) and (7) Md. Mahmood Mian (acquitted).

4. The case was investigated and thereafter charge sheet was submitted on 14.12.1986 against all the accused persons and cognizance was taken by the learned trial court on 23.04.1987.

5. After completion of supply of police papers, the case was committed to the court of sessions on 24.07.1987 and charges were framed under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the seven FIR named accused persons on 11.08.1988.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 11 witnesses to prove the case. P.W. 1 Ali Hasan Mian; P.W. 2 Mandev Mukhiya and P.W. 3 Dihu Mukhiya had turned hostile. P.W. 4 Moti Mukhiya was only tendered. P.W. 5 Babu Ram Mukhiya is a hearsay witness; P.W. 6 Dhruv Narayan Prasad and P.W. 9 Radha Krishna Prasad had seen the accused persons fleeing away. Ram Deo Bin is the informant and father of the deceased and he has been examined as P.W.7. P.W.8 is Suraj Mal Singh; Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and he had submitted the charge sheet. Girendra Prasad Mishra is the Investigating Officer of this case and he was examined as P.W.10. Nisar Ahmad was examined as P.W.11 and he is a Pharmacist who has proved the signature and hand writing of the doctor on the post mortem report as well as has proved the post-mortem report.

7. Shri Alok Kumar has argued on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside on the ground that the informant i.e. P.W. 7 had identified the accused persons in the light