The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the quality of evidence over quantity, the weight given to the testimony of an injured witness, and the impact of non-examination of the Investigating Officer on the case.

1. Appellants Chandeshwar Sah and Durga Sah have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307/149 of the IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years vide judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2009 and order of sentence dated 24.07.2009 passed by sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Session trial No.167 of 1998.

2. Prosecution case in brief as per fardbeyan of Hari Nandan Roy (PW.1) recorded on 26.05.1995 at 01:00 PM at Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur where he was admitted in emergency ward is to the effect that on the same day he was on his duty at Sub- Centre PHC, Khabra where, at about 12:15 PM Chandeshwar Sah, Durga Sah, Anil Kumar, Dashrath Rai, Harendra Rai, Vishwanath Rai came over two motorcycle. Chandeshwar Sah and Durga Sah said to him that as you are creating dispute relating to a land so he will be eliminated today. They ordered Dasrath Rai to shoot where upon, Dashrath Rai took out pistol and shot at him causing injury over his chest. He, after raising alarm fell down. Then, Vishwanath Rai disclosed that he has died whereupon, all of them left over motorcycle. Then, his colleague Sarswati Devi came and raised alarm whereupon her son along with others came and lifted him to Sadar Hospital. The motive for the occurrence has been shown as there happens to be title suit pending in between Chandeshwar Sah and Durga Sah with him relating to a land and in likewise manner, there also happens to be land dispute with Dashrath Rai.

3. As is evident from the record, after registration of Sadar P.S. Case No.70/1995, the investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge sheet only against these two appellants/accused namely Chandeshwar Sah and Durga Sah on the other hand, had not found complicity of the other co-accused accordingly, they were not sent up. On the basis thereof, the learned lower court proceeded with the trial and at the time of dictating judgment, found expedient in the interest of justice to summon Dasrath Rai, only being an assailant as provided under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which the learned lower court recorded vide order dated 21.07.2009. That being so, there happens to be registration of new session trial relating to accused Dasrath Rai bearing Session Trial No.580 of 2009 and fortunately, appeal having been filed on his behalf bearing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.186 of 2015 is also pending which is also going to be decided today.

4. Defence case as is evident from the statement of the appellants/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as from the cross-examination of the witnesses is that of complete denial. However, neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced in support there of.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had adduced altogether seven PWs, PW.1-Hari Nandan, informant/victim, PW.2-Sudhir Kumar, PW.3-Uma Lal Thakur, PW.4-Raj Kumar Mahto, PW.5-Pradip Kumar Thakur, PW.6-Jai Mangal Thakur, PW.7-Dr. Dhirendra Prasad Singh. Side by side also exhibited Ext.1-Signature of informant over fardbeyan, Ext.2 is the injury report. As stated above, nothing has been adduced on behalf of defence.

6. Before coming to main stream, an ancillary event is to be acknowledged and that is with regard to Sarswati Devi who was summoned for evidence but found dead and for that the court examined Sudhir Kumar Mukhiya, as CW.1 vide order dated 26.04.2005. Though serial no. of witnesses has been corrected subsequently vide order dated 09-07-2009 which, should not have been. Be that as it may, the chapter is found finally closed, hence no further effort is being taken. Furthermore, it is evident that on a prayer of prosecution on 16.05.2006 summon was issued agaisnt Pawan Kumar son of Chandeshwar Ojha along with the magistrate Shri Anand Singh but, their presence could not be procured during course of trial. Now sailing ahead, it is apparent from the record that Investigating Officer has also not been examined. So far occurrence is concerned, only PW.1, in