The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

1. Both the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Shashank Chandra, the learned Advocate for the appellants (three in number in both the appeals) and Mr. Ajay Mishra, the learned APP for the State.

3. Appellant/Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad has been convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, whereas appellants/Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, vide judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 491 of 2016, Trial No. 102 of 2017 arising out of Giriyak P.S. Case No. 108 of 2014. By order dated 11.10.2018, appellant/Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms. So far as, appellants/Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar are concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, all the appellants have been further directed to undergo R.I. for three years.

4. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

5. Meena Devi @ Kamla Devi is alleged to have been shot dead by appellant/Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad, who had come to the house of the deceased along with his two sons, viz., appellants/Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was shot at by appellant/Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad in presence of her son/Pradeep Kumar (P.W. 3) and Urmila Devi and Kusum Devi (P.W. 5 and P.W. 7). The deceased was taken to hospital but on way, she died. Still, the dead-body was taken to the hospital, where she was officially declared dead. This had happened on 05.05.2014 at about 08 O’clock in the night. At about 10:50 in the night, the inquest was performed. The post-mortem on the dead-body was conducted at 07:45 A.M. on the next day, i.e. on 06.05.2014.

6. The fardbeyan has been given by Pardeep Kumar (P.W. 3), which was recorded by S.I. Praveen Kumar/S.H.O. of Pawapuri outpost in the district of Nalanda (P.W. 9) though wrongly stated in the paper book as P.W. 10.

7. P.W. 3 has alleged that while he was sitting along with his mother (deceased) in front of the Kirana shop belonging to him, his neighbour Arvind Kumar @ Mathura (appellant in Cr. APP. (DB) No. 1362 of 2018) along with his two sons, viz., Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar (appellants in Cr. APP. (DB) No. 1329 of 2018) came near the shop. He has further alleged that Arvind Kumar fired at his mother which hit her on the right side of the waist. After injuring his mother, all the three accused persons/appellants fled away towards eastern side. His mother started crying in pain. She bled profusely. With the help of the others/neighbour, his mother was taken to Biharsharif Hospital but on way she died. Still, she was taken to Sadar Hospital where she was declared dead. The cause of occurrence as stated in the fardbeyan is that about fifteen to twenty days before a plot of fallow land situated to the South of his house was measured and during such measurement, the accused persons/appellants had threatened him and his mother that they shall not allow the land to pass on in their hands and that either him or his mother shall be killed.

8. On the basis of the afore-noted fardbeyan/statement of P.W. 3, Giriyak P.S. Case No. 108 of 2014, dated 06.05.2014 was registered for investigation for the offences under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

9. We have noticed that one Dhuri Mahto P.W. 5A (w