Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State on this criminal appeal.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 11.09.2012 and order of sentence dated 17.09.2012 passed by Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2011 arising out of Barahara (Sinha) P.S. Case No. 239 of 2010, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant, namely, Manoj Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also slapped him with fine of Rs. 25000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for three months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and slapped him with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that Barahara (Sinha) P.S. Case No. 239 of 2010 was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused, namely, Manoj Singh on the basis of the fardbeyan of Gupti Paswan, Son of Late Lakhan Paswan recorded by S.I. S. D. Choudhary, SHO, Sinha O.P. on 10.09.2010 at 01:30 PM at Pani Tanki Compound, Nizampur with the allegation in succinct that his son Basant Paswan happens to be driver of Engineer Mohan Reddy of water tank, Nizampur and he used to reside in the quarter located in its premises. As his son was not paying visit to him for the last two months, he arrived at his son’s quarter on 10.09.2010 at around 12:30 PM. At that time his son sitting on a cot in his room was interacting with a person. On quizzing about the identity of the said person, he introduced him as a driver, namely, Manoj Singh. Then they consumed tea there. After taking tea, he started seeing hither and thither. In the meantime, Manoj Singh weeping out pistol from his waist resorted firing on his son and escaped away stepping out of the room. Responding the firing sound, he rushed to his son and found him dead sustaining bleeding bullet injury below his right eye. Then he made alarm. Responding the same, the persons working in the premises rushed there.

4. Aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted chargesheet against the aforesaid accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. On receiving the chargesheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused and committed the case to the court of sessions and on transfer finally the case came in the seisin of Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Ara for trial.

6. Charge against the accused was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Charge was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether six prosecution witnesses namely, Ghanshyam Paswan as PW-1, Sheo Murti Sharma as PW-2, Saroj Kumar Singh as PW-3, informant Gupti Paswan as PW-4, Dr. Ashutosh Kumar who conducted autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased as PW-5 and I.O. Shyam Deo Choudhary as PW-6. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PWs-2 and 3 turned hostile. In documentary evidence, the prosecution has also filed and proved some documents.

8. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence claiming to have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused has neither adduced any ocular nor documentary evidence in buttress of his case.

9. After hearing the parties and perusing th