IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the chain of circumstances so complete that the possibility of any other hypothesis is negated. Inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses may be a ground for disbelieving their evidence.

JUDGMENT :

The present batch of appeals has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2018 and the order of sentence dated 02.02.2018 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey, IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 290/2016, New No. 293/2016, arising out of Maker P.S. case No. 29/2007, G.R. No. 2691/2007 whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 380/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’), Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years under Section 148 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. one lakh each under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each under Section 380/149 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each under Section 27 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 17 of C.L.A Act. All the sentences so imposed on the appellants shall run concurrently and in default of payment of fine amount, the appellants shall undergo additional sentence for six months, one month and two months respectively.

2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of Mukesh Kumar Sharma @ Guddu Sharma recorded on 19.08.2007 at 20.45 hrs at his residence at Machhahi Jamapur, is that today i.e. 19.08.2007 the informant went to the Maker bazar and returned to his house at about 19.30 hrs. The informant further stated that while he was talking to Rohit and Deepak at the dalan and informant’s father, driver, brother, private bodyguard, Mritunjay Singh and neighbours Srikant Sharma, Muneshwar Sharma and his uncle Shambhu Sharma were talking at the varandah and the children were studying inside the house and lady members were cooking and were also doing domestic works, suddenly, 50-60 persons including 5-6 ladies, armed with various weapons, came to his door. The informant further stated that they captured the persons present at the varandah and assaulted them with bamboo stick and also tied the legs and hands of female members and started indiscriminate firing and exploding bombs and were searching for informant. Out of fear, the informant jumped from the room through a window in the bush at the back side of his house and saw that Rampukar Mahto along with 25 others named in the F.I.R. and some unknown persons (to whom the informant can identify on seeing face) set on fire the Bolero vehicle, tractor and motorcycles. When the informant came back to his house, he saw that his wife, uncle and bodyguard Mritunjay Singh were lying dead and there were injuries on their person of firing and bomb. The informant further stated that on search it was found that his DBBL gun No.19517, 315 Bore Rifle of the personal body guard, a VIP containing cash of Rs. 1,50,000/-, ornaments of gold, silver, clothes and some papers including of vehicle and Panchayat, cheques, three mobiles were also taken away by the accused persons. The accused persons also destroyed the house hold articles of the informant. The accused persons pasted some posters on the wall showing maowadi and naxali slogans. The informant further stated that after the incidence, his uncle Pramod Sharma and servant Loha Singh were missing.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Maker P.S. case No. 29/2007 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 427, 302, 307 of I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants on which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, in order to substantiate the charges against the