IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of corroborative evidence and proof beyond all reasonable doubts in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

By the impugned judgment and order dated 26.3.2014/28.3.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc Court No.II, Madhepura, in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1992, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. Fardbeyan of P.W. 7 recorded by Abdul Raquib, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Madhepura Police Station on 27.10.1991 at 8:00 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Madhepura is the basis for registration of the concerned Madhepura P.S. Case No. 284 of 1991 disclosing commission of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is the prosecution's case, as set out in the fardbeyan, that at about 6:15 P.M. on the said date, the informant had come to a place known as Matahi Chowk searching for his son, Shatrughan Yadav (the deceased). There he saw his son taking refreshment near the shop of one Bino Sah (not examined). In the meanwhile, a Maxi Taxi bearing registration No. BR-11M8141 stopped there. Thereafter, the appellant, who was sitting in the said Maxi Taxi, called the deceased, in response to which, the deceased went to the gate of motor vehicle.

4. The appellant, thereafter, fired at his son and attempted to escape alongwith his other associates. He was, however, overpowered by some of the persons present there with the cooperation of local Choukidar Suresh Paswan (not examined), co-villager, Raj Kishore Yadav (not examined), Maxi driver, Safique Alam (P.W.2), cleaner of the vehicle Shamim Khan (P.W.3), Ganesh Yadav (not examined) and other villagers of village Matahi. One country made pistol and a cartridge was recovered from the possession of this appellant by the persons who had apprehended him. The deceased was brought to a nearby hospital where he died during the course of treatment.

5. The police upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon, the cognizance was taken on 22.02.1992. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, giving rise to the present Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1992. The charge was subsequently framed for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As the appellant denied the charge framed against him, he was put to trial.

6. At the trial, altogether, nine prosecution's witnesses were examined, out of which, P.W.-1 (Ganesh Bhagat), P.W.-2 (Md. Safique), P.W.-3 (Shamim Khan) and P.W.-4 (Lakhan Paswan) came to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. The informant (P.W.-7) supported the prosecution's case as an eye-witness. The Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination came to be examined as P.W.-6, whereas P.W.-8 proved the signature and handwriting of the Sub-Inspector of Police who had recorded the fardbeyan.

7. P.W.9 proved the signature of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station on the FIR. Apparently, P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the formal witnesses. The postmortem report was proved by the Doctor (P.W.-6) and was exhibited as Exhibit-1. The signature and handwriting of the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had recorded the fardbeyan, was proved by P.W.-2 and was exhibited as Exhibit-2 and the signature of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station on the FIR was exhibited as Exhibit-3.

8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, the materials coming against the appellant in the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses were explained to the appellant and he was given an opportunity to explain the circumstances coming against him, in compliance with the requirement under Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellant, however, denied all such accusations/allegations/materials coming against him to establish the charge of commission of the offence punishab