An accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when evidence is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate for the sole appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide judgment dated 30.01.2021 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya in SC/ST Trial No. 140 of 2016. By order dated 05.02.2021, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC; imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2500/- for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for three months for each of the offences. The State has been represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP.

2. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. One Girija Devi is said to have been shot dead by the appellant while she along with others including the informant (her mother-in-law) had been coming back home after collecting soil. The FIR has been lodged by the mother-in-law of the deceased, viz., Kauleshri Devi (PW-1) who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. She has stated in her fardbeyan, which was recorded by SI Akhilesh Singh (not examined) on 18.03.2015 at about 11:45 AM, that on the same day while she along with the deceased and others, viz., Sangita Devi (PW-7), Saroti Kumari (PW-8), Punam Kumari @ Sonam Kumari (PW-2) was coming back to the village home, the appellant came from the side of the temple and caught the deceased by her hand. Thereafter, he took out his weapon from his pocket and fired at her. When Sangita Devi (PW-7) raised hulla, the appellant ran away.

4. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan of PW-1, a case vide Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2015 dated 18.03.2015 was registered for investigation under Section 302 of the IPC, 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant whereupon he was put on trial.

6. The Trial Court after examining eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

7. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, the learned Advocate for the appellant has made a short submission that all other witnesses, viz., Punam Kumari @ Sonam Kumari (PW-2), Jitendra Manjhi (PW-3), Sangita Devi (PW-7) and Saroti Kumari (PW-8) have been declared hostile. He has further submitted that the deposition of the informant/ Kauleshri Devi (PW-1) clearly reveals that she had not seen the occurrence. The deceased though was killed by the gun-shot but the prosecution could not prove as to who had killed her and for what purpose. He has further submitted that on a reading of the entire evidence on record, it would appear that the deceased, no doubt, died a homicidal death, but the name of the appellant was perhaps provided to PW-1 and, therefore, she had named him as the assailant of the deceased.

8. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not very unusual for persons of poor strata of society going hostile over a period of time. The informant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. There was no reason for her to have lied before the Trial Court or in her fardbeyan statement. There is nothing on record to indicate any reason for the offence. Even this being so, there does not appear to be any reason for falsely implicating the appellant. The deceased died of gun-shot which is clearly attributable to the appellant. Hence, there is no necessity of interfering with the judgment and order of conviction.

9. We have examined the reco