IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial witnesses and reports.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing a judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2019 and an order of sentence dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 2015 arising out Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 183 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. Dhiraj Kumar Chaudhary, (PW-5), a nephew of the deceased is the informant of the concerned Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 183 of 2013, disclosing commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the informant’s narrative in his fardbeyan recorded by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police J.S. Mishra of Bhagwanpur Police Station (not examined), on 09.08.2013 in the postmortem house of the Sadar Hospital (Hajipur) at 12:15 P.M., the occurrence had taken place at 08:00 A.M. when the informant was having tea in a line hotel of one Ranjeet Singh situated adjacent to N.H-77. After hearing the sound of firing, according to him, he rushed towards the highway and found that some people armed with pistol and iron rods were assaulting two persons. Immediately, thereafter, he rushed towards the site of occurrence where one Sunil Kumar Chaudhary was seen crying for help. When he reached the place of occurrence, he noticed that this appellant, co-accused Randhir Kumar Chaudhary and Sushil Kumar Chaudhary were carrying pistol. Co-accused Swetambar Chaudhary was having an iron rod in his hand whereas co-accused Ashutosh Kumar Chaudhary was armed with a sharp-edged sickle. Co-accused Bali Ram Chaudhary and co-accused Jay Prakash Rai were also carrying pistols. There were three other persons, who could not be identified by the informant. All of them were assaulting the informant’s uncle Binod Chaudhary (the deceased) and co-villager Sunil Kumar Chaudhary. They injured the deceased with the use of fire-arms. They also fired at Sunil Kumar Chaudhary who luckily escaped the assault. He (the informant) thereafter signalled a TATA Sumo vehicle to stop which was on way towards Muzzafarpur and took the deceased (Binod Chaudhary, the deceased), in the said Sumo vehicle with a co-villager Sunil Kumar Singh (PW-6), to Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. At Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur the deceased was declared dead. From Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur the dead body of the deceased was brought to Sadar Hospital, Hajipur where his fardbeyan was recorded. The reason behind the occurrence, according to the informant was a land dispute of the deceased with Balram Chaudhary in connection with which Balram Chaudhary was getting support of this appellant.

3. The chargesheet was submitted by the police on completion of investigation against this appellant and co-accused Swetambar Chaudhary on 30.08.2014, while keeping the investigation pending against others. Cognizance was subsequently taken based on the said chargesheet on 23.03.2015. Another chargesheet was submitted on 20.03.2015 against co-accused Randhir Kumar Chaudhary, Sushil Kumar Chaudhary, Ashutosh Kumar Chaudhary and Balram Chaudhary for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereupon cognizance was taken on 21.03.2016. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by two separate orders dated 29.07.2015 and 26.10.2016. It transpires from the records that the charges were framed against this appellant and co-accused Swetambar Chaudhary on 12.12.2018 in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 2015. A separate trial was re