The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; eyewitness identification and medical corroboration affirmed the conviction under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

(RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP on behalf of the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 594 of 2011 / 161 of 2012, arising out of Tikkapatti P.S. Case No.16 of 2011 (G.R. No. 722 of 2011), by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Purnea by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 447 , 307 and 504/34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , where, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and three year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT with a direction that all sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Heard Mr. Ajit Rayan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A.M.P Mehta, learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. The brief facts of the case are that informant gave his fardbeyan stating therein that in the intervening night of 28.03.2011, the informant was sleeping in his Basa, situated at Jamur Baihar. It is further stated that about 1 AM, Ashok Mahto (Appellant) along with three four unknown person came at his Basa and woke him and after awaking he searched his torch. In the meantime one person told Ashok to kill the informant. It is further stated that then Ashok fired on upon him which hit the informant/ on above his right chest and exist from the Arm pit of the back. After making firing the accused persons entered into the corn field and then informant went to the Basa of Chote Lal Mandal and then went towards Tikapatti,. It is stated that after reaching home informant was taken to police station on cot by his family members and neighbours. It is claimed by the informant that he will recognize Ashok Mahto, but he does not know his name. It is further stated that Ashok Mahto (Appellant) due to enmity injured him with the intention to kill by assaulting him with firearm.

5. The police investigated the case and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 447 , 307 and 504/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT , accordingly cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea and the case was committed for trial on 01.10.2011.

6 To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in this case, out of them, PW-1 Chanak Lal Mandal, PW-2 Minu Devi, PW-3 Jagdish Pandey, PW-4 Rajendra Mandal, PW-5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW-6 Dr. Rafi Zubair and PW-7 Dr, Md. Tanvir Alam.

7. The prosecution has examined all together Seven witnesses to establish the prosecution case out of which PW-1 Chanak Lal Mandal was declared hostile since he has not supported the prosecution case. PW-2 Minu Devi is hearsay witness and has deposed that occurrence took place eight or nine year ago. PW-3 Jagdish Pandey who was the investigation officer of this case has taken up charge of investigation on 15.04.2011. He went to the place of occur