Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shrivastava for the appellant, Mr. S.B. Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ramendra Singh for the Informant.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 22.06.2016 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years, a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer SI for six months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 306 of 2012 passed by Sri Yogesh Narain Singh, learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge,, Bhojpur at Ara. The sentences however have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The deceased namely Md. Siraj is said to have been shot dead by the appellant.

4. Majhabi Begum/P.W.3, who is the elder sister of the deceased, has lodged the FIR on 01.07.2011 at 8.30 AM at her house alleging that she was telephonically informed on 01.07.2011 in the morning that her younger brother/Md. Siraj has been killed by the appellant. The deceased had left the house in the morning for going to a tea shop. No sooner had he left, P.W.3 learnt the aforenoted fact on telephone. She also learnt that local persons had taken the deceased to Sadar Hospital where, after preliminary treatment, he was referred Patna but, on the way, near Koilwar, he died.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted Fardbeyan statement, a case vide Ara Town P.S. Case No. 183 of 2011 dated 01.07.2011 was registered for investigation against the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

6. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.

7. The learned trial court, after having examined the five witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforenoted.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has argued that the decision is perverse in as much as the trial court has not taken into account the inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses which has gone to the root of the matter and has rendered every evidence unbelievable. It has further been argued that according to the evidence collected during the trial, nobody can be said, with certainty, to be the witness to the occurrence and that some hearsay statement of a rickshaw-puller has been relied upon by the Trial court to convict the appellant.

9. The evidence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is completely lacking in material particulars and if one part of the deposition of one of the witnesses is believed, the other part of the statement made by the same witness stands discredited.

10. From the deposition of Majhabi Begum/ Informant/ P.W.3, it would appear that she has improved upon her statement made in the FIR. In her deposition before the Trial court, she has stated that at about 5 to 5.30 in the morning, the deceased came out of the house for going to the tea shop and within half an hour, somebody called P.W.3 to inform her that the deceased has been killed by Md. Ali (Appellant). Who gave that information has not been disclosed by her. She also did not try to find out as to who was the caller giving information of the death of the deceased. Within an hour, P.W.3 asserts that Siraj, still alive, came on a rickshaw and the rickshaw-puller/Md. Kalim/ P.W.1 told her that the appellant has fired at Siraj. The brother of P.W.3 also told her that the appellant had fired at him. She directed the rickshaw-puller to take her brother to the hospital, Thereafter, she informed the police and later reached the hospital but, by that time, her brother had already been referred to