The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and material contradictions in evidence can render eyewitness testimony unreliable.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State.

2. Both these appeals arise out of same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The present criminal appeals have been preferred in the year 1996 i.e., around 26 years ago, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 32/1994 (arising out of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No.149/1993, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court has convicted both the appellants, namely, Anil Mandal (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 321 of 1996) and Mantu Mandal (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 342 of 1996) under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further appellant Mantu Mandal has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant Anil Mandal is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas appellant Mantu Mandal is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences awarded against the appellant Anil Mandal were directed to run concurrently. The learned Trial court has further ordered that the period of custody undergone during trial by the appellants shall be set off from the period of sentence under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

4. When the appeal was taken up on 26.07.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals. Therefore, this Court in the interest of justice deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. Prashant Kumar as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellants at the cost of the State. However, later on, the learned counsel for the appellants has appeared.

5. The present case has been registered on the basis of fardbeyan of one Kailash Das (P.W.13), who happens to be the Informant of this case, recorded on 11.05.1993 at 8.35 p.m. wherein he has stated that on the same day at 7:30 p.m. while he was talking at the shop of Baiju Bandal, his sons Raj Kumar (deceased) and Dharmendra Kumar were also present in the grocery shop owned by the informant, which is situated beside the shop of Baiju Mandal. Thereafter, accused Mantu Mandal @ Vinod Mandal, Anil Mandal and two unknown persons came over there and called his son Raj Kumar and when his son came out, a quarrel (lattapatti) took place on which the informant asked as to why they are doing so and in the meantime, appellant Anil Mandal took out a pistol and fired upon his son Raj Kumar (deceased), due to which the deceased fell down and lot of blood started coming out of his body. Thereafter, appellant Mantu Mandal got a bomb exploded and then they fled towards the field of K.R.K. School. The informant further narrated in his fardbeyan that after the said incident took place, he alongwith the help of other persons brought the deceased before Dr. Ajit Kumar, who after seeing the deceased declared him dead and then he brought the dead body of the deceased to his house, where the police also came. The informant further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Shambhu Das (P.W.10), Rajendra Kumar (P.W.9), Anil Singh (not examined), Shikhar Goswami (P.W.2) and others. The informant further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence is that on 26.4.1993 one Jitendra Kumar and Bablu Kumar (son of the informant) had purchased ice cream from appellant Mantu Mandal (appellant) and some altercation had taken place for payment of money and on the next day, the deceased had gone to the house of appellants Mantu Mandal (appellant) and Anil Mandal (appellant) to warn them and upon which both of them got a bomb exploded on the shop of the informant on the same day. The other motive behind the occu