JUDGMENT :

A.M. Badar, J.

The appellant/convicted accused by this appeal is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2013 and 02.11.2013 respectively passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No.75 of 2011, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as well as directing him to pay fine of Rs.10000/-on the first count and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5000/-on the second count. The default sentences are also awarded to him and it is directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as “an accused”.

2. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:

(a). According to the prosecution case, by using the firearms the accused has committed murder of Jitendra Kumar, son of Bishwanath Sahni, resident of village-Kanhauli Mohan Sahni Tola, Police Station-Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur, at about 03.00 P.M. of 28.02.2010. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused, who is also resident of the same village, was assaulting to one Umesh Sahni, neighbour of the first informant Samudri Devi, who happens to be the mother of the deceased Jitendra Kumar. Looking that incident of assault, Jitendra Kumar tried to intervene and pacify the accused. However, the accused whipped out a pistol and fired a bullet which hit at the left eye of Jitendra Kumar. He fell down. He was then taken to the S.K.M.C. Hospital, Muzzafarpur, for treatment. From there, he was referred to Patna but while taking him to Patna, Jitendra Kumar succumbed to the injuries suffered by him.

(b). P.W.7 Samudri Devi, who happens to be the mother of Jitendra Kumar, lodged the F.I.R. of the subject crime at about 08.00 P.M. of 28.02.2010 at S.K.M.C. Hospital, Muzaffarpur and that is how, this Crime No.34 of 2010 came to be registered against the accused at the Police Station-Mithanpura.

(c). After the death of Jitendra Kumar, inquest notes were prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Routine investigation followed and on completion thereof, the accused came to be chargesheeted.

(d). The learned trial court had framed the charge for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(e). In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/ accused, the prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses. Sandhya Devi, aunt of the deceased, who claims to be an witness to the incident in question, is examined as P.W.1. Bishwanath Sahni, father of the deceased, is examined as P.W.2. He also claims to be an eye witness to the incident in question. Sita Devi, sister-in-law of the deceased, who also claims to be an eye witness, is examined as P.W.3. Surendra Kumar, a co-villager, is examined as P.W.4. Sugiya Devi, a co-villager, is examined as P.W.5 and she claims herself to be an eye witness to the incident. Bhonu Kumar, a co-villager, who reached on the spot of the incident soon after the incident, is examined as P.W.6. First Informant Samudri Devi, mother of the deceased, who claims to be an eye witness to the incident, is examined as P.W.7. Raju Paswan, a co-villager, is examined as P.W.8. He is a hearsay witness. Rampadarth Ojha, Clerk of the Advocate, is examined as P.W.9, to prove the signature of Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad and his handwriting on the report of the Post-Mortem Examination of dead body of Jitendra Kumar.

(f). The defence of the accused was that of total denial. He, however, did not enter in the defence.

(g). After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was please to convict the appellant/accused and to sentence him, as indicated in the opening paragraph of