IMPORTANT POINT
The reliability of witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence are crucial in proving a case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

The present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment of conviction dated 22.05.2015 and order of sentence dated 28.05.2015 rendered by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barh, Patna in S.T. No. 116/06, corresponding to G.R. No. 723/2001, arising out of Barh Case No. 203/2001, by which the concerned trial court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) only, and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years more. Further the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-(five thousand) only for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Both sentences run concurrently.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant Barfi Devi, wife of late Dineshwar Yadav, proceeded to go with her husband to her parental village. They left the house at about 8:30 AM in the morning. When they reached near the agriculture field of Madan Sah, the present appellant and another accused Chhote Yadav along with two unknown persons surrounded them and thereafter the present appellant opened fire from his country made pistol, which hit in the right ear pit of her husband. At the same time, another accused Chhote Yadav also fired at the husband of the first informant, which hit in the right ribs of the Dineshwar Yadav, as a result of which injured fell down and immediately died. It is stated that cause of the occurrence is land dispute between her brother-in-law Subhash Yadav and the appellant. The first information report was registered with Barh P.S. bearing Case No. 203 of 2001 at 4:00 PM. for the alleged incident which took place at 9:00 AM in the morning.

3. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Agency started investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses, the investigating officer also collected the material and prepared Panchnama and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the present appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act before the concerned Magistrate Court.

4. As the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned Sessions Court, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2006.

5. During the course of trial, the charge was framed against the present appellant/accused and the prosecution examined 08 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, the further statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after conclusion of the trial the trial court passed impugned order of conviction, against which the present appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. Heard learned Advocate, Mr Bikramdeo Singh for the appellant/accused assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey and Ms. Kumari Pallavi and learned APP Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad for the respondent/State.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant has referred to the deposition given by the prosecution witnesses and also referred to the inquest Panchnama and the post mortem report of the deceased and thereafter, it is mainly contended that there was a gross delay of 7 hours in lodging the FIR, wherein the present appellant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that though PW-4 Sakuni Devi and PW-5 Barfi Devi have claimed that they are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question, in fact, nobody has seen the incident in question. It is also submitted that PW-4 Sakuni Devi did not inform the police when her stat