The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of interested witnesses can be credible if corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2018 and 12.07.2018, respectively passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2017, arising out of Bihta P.S. case No. 840 of 2016 dated 31.10.2016, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence Punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The FIR bearing Bihta P.S Case No. 840 of 2016 was registered on 31.10.2016 at 17:45 O’clock on the written report of the informant against three accused persons namely, Shashi Bhushan Yadav @ Holi Yadav, Krishna Yadav and Sonu Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case as per the written report of the Informant dated 31.10.2016 addressed to Officer-in-Charge Bihta Police Station at 10:00 O’ Clock in the morning is that the Informant had gone to Parev market for his personal work and after completion of the work, he was coming back by motorcycle at 3:30 PM. At about 4:00 PM when he reached near the house of Bajrangi Yadav at village Doghra, he saw that all the accused persons, as named in the FIR and residents of village Doghra, were abusing Bajrangi Yadav. One Ashwini Kumar @ Bablu Kumar, who is the cousin of Bajrangi Yadav, was trying to mediate and diffuse the quarrel. The Informant also came down from the motorcycle, but in the meantime, Shashi Bhushan Yadav @ Holi Yadav fired from his gun at Ashwini Kumar @ Bablu Kumar, who is uncle of the Informant. Consequently, Ashwini Kumar fell down on the ground and all the accused persons fled away firing. Upon hulla raised by the Informant, several persons came to the P.O. The informant took Ashwini Kumar to Referral Hospital, Bihta for treatment with the help of some persons, but he was declared dead by the doctor.

4. After registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and charge-sheet bearing No. 19 of 2017 dated 04.02.2017 was filed against the appellant/Shashi Bhushan Yadav @ Holi Yadav under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act; keeping the investigation pending against other co-accused persons. Subsequently, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the sole accused facing the Trial.

5. During trial, the following seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:

(1) P.W.-1 – Raj Kishore Yadav

(2) P.W.-2 – Anil Kumar

(3) P.W.-3 – Bajrangi Yadav (cousin brother of the deceased)

(4) P.W.-4 – Satyendra Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Yadav (Informant)

(5) P.W.-5 – Dr. Narendra Kumar Mishra

(6) P.W.-6 – Rabindra Kumar (Investigating Officer)

(7) P.W. 7- Upendra Rajak

6. The prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences also:

(i) Ext. 1, Ext. 1/1 and Ext. 1/2- Signature of witnesses Anil Kumar, Raj Kishore Yadav and Bajrangi Yadav on the written report.

(ii) Ext. 2 – Signature of the informant on the written report

(iii) Ext. 3 – Postmortem report

(iv) Ext. 4 - Endorsement of Sub Inspector Subhash Kumar on written report

(v) Ext.5, Ext. 5/1- Signature of Sub Inspector Subhash Kumar on formal FIR

(vi) Ext. 6- charge-sheet

(vii) Ext. 7- Inquest report

(viii) Ext. 7A and 7B- Signature of witnesses Satyendra Kumar @ Pappu Kumar and Bajrangi Yadav on inquest report.

(ix) Ext. 8- Chalan report of dead body of the deceased.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC confronting him with incriminating circumstances which had come in the prosecution evidence, so as to afford him an opportunity to ex