The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; mere suspicion and motive are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1 All the three appeals have been taken up together as they have been preferred against the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2009 and 05.01.2010 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IIIrd, Barh, in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2005, arising out of Marachi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002, whereby all the three appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant/Sanjit Kumar Singh has also been found guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and all three appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant/Sanjit Kumar Singh has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act. There is also a default clause in the order of sentence stipulating that in case the appellants do not pay the fine under Section 302 IPC, they would be further required to undergo R.I. for nine months and in case of default to pay the fine by the appellant/Sanjit Kumar Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he has been directed to further undergo R.I. for six months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the fardebayan of the informant/Ram Shankar Prasad Singh recorded by S.I. Satyendra Narayan Singh of Marachi Police Station at Malpur near N.H. 80 at 18:15 O' clock on 09.05.2002 is that at 16:45 O' clock on 09.05.2002, he was giving tuition to children of one Nirshu Singh. He got information that his elder brother Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh, aged 45 years, who was member of Malpur Panchayat Samiti, had been murdered by Sanjit Kumar Singh and Bugan Sharma by gunshot. Thereafter, he ran to the place of occurrence and came to know that his brother was already taken by the people to hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the dead body of his brother was brought back and it was stated that he died en-route to the hospital. The cause behind the occurrence has been stated to be kidnapping of son of Ramesh Prasad Singh (teacher) in the past in which Sanjit Kumar Singh and Bugan Sharma were accused and who were arrested at Bakhtiyarpur and his brother Gauri Shankar Singh had gone to see them at Bakhtiyarpur and who was instrumental in compromise between them and get them released on bail and after release on bail, the occurrence has been caused. The Informant has claimed that his brother Gauri Shankar Singh has been murdered by Sanjit Kumar Singh and Bugan Sharma (mistri) by gunshot.

3. On the basis of the fardebayan of the informant, Marachi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002 was registered on 09.05.2002 against Sanjit Kumar Singh and Bugan Sharma (mistri) for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against only one accused/Ranjit Kumar Singh keeping the investigation pending against the rest accused. Subsequently, charge-sheet against Janardan Singh and some other accused was submitted and hence, their separate trials started. However, subsequently, trial of Janardan Singh was separated and his trial bearing Sessions Trial No. 809 of 2006 was amalgamated in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2005 by the order dated 02.05.2007 passed in S.T. No. 70 of 2005. It further transpires that Sanjit Kumar Singh was being tried in Sessions Trial No. 1218 of 2007 arising out of the same Marachi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002. However, his Sessions Trial No. 1218 of 2007 was also amalgamated in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2005 by the order dated 05.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2005.

5. During Trial, charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all three appellants and additional charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also framed against one appellant, viz. Sanjit Kumar Singh