IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's duty to carefully scrutinize the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2017 and an order of sentence dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2014 arising out of Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 124 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. A written report of the informant Subhash Kumar Mandal (PW-3) dated 02.09.2013, addressed to the Station House Officer, Pirpainti P.S is the basis for registration of the concerned Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 124 of 2013, disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR was registered at 4:30 pm on 02.09.2013 based on the information received at the P.S at 4:30 pm on the said date. The place of occurrence was at a distance of 15 Kms from the P.S. The case, as narrated by the informant in his written report is that the informant was studying in his house when at about 10:30 pm he heard sounds of firing and as soon as he came out, he saw Mantu Mandal (husband of the deceased), Jichchu Mandal, Shankar Mandal, Ranjan Singh and Dayanand Yadav fleeing away after having killed the informant’s sister Sabita Devi. The occurrence was seen by his mother Urmila Devi (PW-1) and his nephew (son of the deceased) Ravi Kumar Mandal (PW-5). The deceased had sustained injuries in her parietal region and abdomen. He alleged that the relationship of the appellant with the deceased had broken down and they lived separately, though adjacent to each other. Because of some property disputes, the accused persons had shot the deceased dead.

3. The police upon completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, keeping the investigation pending against others. Cognizance was accordingly taken and charge was framed against the appellant only, on 24.07.2014 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2014.

4. Subsequently on 30.07.2015 chargesheet was submitted against this appellant for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, keeping investigation pending against others.

5. After cognizance of the offence was taken, charge was also framed against co-accused Shankar Mandal, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1122 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2014. Thus, the aforementioned Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 124 of 2013 gave rise to two separate trials; one against the present appellant and other against appellant Shankar Mandal. Whereas the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated 22.11.2017 and 27.11.2017 in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2014 which are under challenge in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 128 of 2018, the appellant Shankar Mandal came to be convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated 21.07.2018 and 24.07.2018 passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 2016.

6. As both the appeals arise out of the same criminal case they have been listed together. Separate arguments were advanced in both the appeals by the learned counsels for the parties and the said Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1122 of 2018 is also being disposed of by separate judgment and order by this Court.

7. Coming back to the facts of the present appeal, at the trial, prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses including two investigating officers namely Samrendra Kumar (PW-8) and Bharat Ram (PW-9), the informant (PW-3), the mother of