Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of credible eyewitnesses and contradictions in testimony led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

We have heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, the learned APP for the State.

2. Both the appellants, viz., Manoj Bind @ Manoj Kumar and Rameshwar Bind @ Ram Ishwar Bind, have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 /120(B) read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short the IPC) and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 413 of 2017/Trial No. 103 of 2017, arising out of Paras Bigha P.S. Case No. 68 of 2017 vide judgment dated 27.03.2018. By order dated 28.03.2018, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Sections 302 /120(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to suffer S.I. for one year.

3. Two persons, namely, Nirmal Bind and Sintu Bind are said to have been strangulated to death. Nirmal Bind has also been alleged to have been hit by gun-shot in his testicles.

4. The F.I.R. has been lodged by Lal Bahadur Bind (informant/P.W. 1), who is the cousin of one of the deceased (Nirmal Bind). He lodged the written report on 30.05.2017 alleging that on 28.05.2017, while he was having the soil removed by JCB on his land, co- accused/Ramesh Bind, a relative and a neighbour, came and stopped him from doing so. He had threatened that in case the soil would be excavated, the informant would face dire consequences. Thereafter, it has been alleged that many persons came to the house of afore-noted Ramesh Bind and the wife of Ramesh Bind was making those visitors identify the members of the family of the informant. On the same day, some guests had arrived at the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and for them, both the deceased, namely, Nirmal and Sintu had gone to the market for purchasing goodies. No sooner had they left the home in the evening, the visitors at the house of Ramesh Bind also started coming out of his house. Later, when P.W. 1 along with his uncle/Ram Pukar Bind (P.W. 2) was going to his field, they heard sound of cries of somebody. When he and P.W. 2 proceeded towards that direction, he found several persons including the appellants and on spotting P.W. 2, started firing from their respective weapons. When P.W. 1 came to the spot, he found both the deceased lying on the ground and struggling for life. He and P.W. 2, thereafter, raised cries when many people arrived. Both the injured persons were taken to Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad, where they were declared dead.

5. On the basis of the afore-noted written report dated 30.05.2017, a case vide Paras Bigha P.S. Case No. 68 of 2017, dated 30.05.2017, was registered for investigation under Sections 302 /120(B) of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

6. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon cognizance was taken and they were tried.

7. This Court has been informed that with respect to others, the investigation is still pending.

8. At the Trial, nine witnesses including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Though in the written report lodged after two days of the occurrence, P.W. 1/Lal Bahadur Bind does not claim to have seen the appellants and others assaulting the deceased, but only saw them firing at P.W. 2 and thereafter fleeing away