The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.)

All the appeals have been taken up together for hearing.

2. We have heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate for three of the appellants, whereas Mr. Uday Kumar and Ms. Madhubala Verma, learned Advocates for two of the other appellants.

3. The State is represented by Mr. Binod Bihari Singh and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APPs.

4. All the appellants (five in number) have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT vide judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 444 of 2011/Registration No. 175 of 2014, arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 16 of 2010. By order dated appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Further the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment of one months for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

5. One Nannu Mahto was shot dead in the room in which he was imparting tuition classes to village students in the night of 11.03.2010.

6. The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased viz. Sone Lal Mahto (P.W. 1), who had alleged in the FIR that at about 7.30 P.M. on 11.03.2010, while he was at his house, he saw and heard people coming from the northern direction that his son Nannu Mahto has been shot. On hearing this, he ran to the P.O. with a torch in his hand and saw the appellants/Raj Kumar Das, Ashok Das and Kamal Kumar Das firing from their respective weapons at the deceased. He also claimed to have seen the appellants/Rakesh Gami and Shailendra Mahto training their weapons towards the villagers to scare them away. Shortly thereafter, appellant/Ashok Das declared that Nannu Mahto is dead. All this while, P.W. 1 had hid himself behind a wall but seeing this, he came out in open and chased the miscreants. After some time, he came back and saw his son dead with several gun-shot wounds on his body. A part of the bullet was also found lying on the floor near the dead body. At the time of the occurrence, the deceased, as usual, was taking tuition classes on the Dalan of one Ram Babu Mahto, who has been examined as one of the defence witnesses.

7. The cause of occurrence as stated in the FIR is that the deceased always protested against the wrong activities of the accused persons and because of that, they were annoyed at him. It was therefore, alleged that the aforenoted five appellants had killed the deceased.

8. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan of P.W. 1, a case vide Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 16 of 2010 dated 11.03.2010 was registered for investigation for the offences under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

9. The records reveal that later, P.W. 1 filed a protest petition stating that the names of two other accused persons were not entered in the fardbeyan viz. Rakesh Das