IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order of conviction dated 21st January, 2014 and order of sentence dated 27th January, 2014 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 168 of 2012/47 of 2013 arising out of Belsand P.S. Case No. 126 of 2011, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-in default of R.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 302/34 and R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-

“The prosecution case, in nut shell, is that on 01.12.2011 at 08.45 A.M., father of the informant namely Hari Shankar Prasad had gone to take betel. All of a sudden, four miscreants namely Upendra Singh, Sudistha Singh, Manikant Singh @ Tunna Singh and Nitish Singh variously armed with pistol came there and seeing his father, one miscreant Upendra Singh order to kill him on which miscreants fired upon his father by their pistols which hited on panjara, left side abdomen, left side arm and right thigh. His father received injuries and fell down. On halla, the miscreants tried to flee away by making firing from their pistol. Two other miscreants were also with them. It is also mentioned in the fardbeyan of the informant that the miscreants have previous enmity with his father due to previous Mukhiya election. The injured was taken to S.K.M.C.H. Muzaffarpur for treatment by the informant, his brother Suresh Gautam and other where he was declared dead by the doctor.”

3. On the basis of the information given by the complainant, F.I.R. bearing Case No. 126 of 2011 dated 01.12.2011 came to be registered with Belsand Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and during course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and after the investigation was over, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the present appellant.

5. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. came to be registered against the two named accused and two unknown persons. The present appellant was shown as accused No. 3 in the F.I.R. As the other co-accused were not available for trial, the trial of the present appellant was separated. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, further statement of the appellant/accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court passed impugned order whereby the present appellant/accused has been convicted, as observed hereinabove.

6. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the depositions given by PW-1 to PW-6 and, thereafter, contended that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and their presence at the place of incident was natural. The said witnesses have not given the name of the present appellant as an assailant. In spite of that, the Trial Court has convicted the present appellant. It is pointed out from the record that PW-1 to PW-6 were not declared hostile by the prosecution and, therefore, t