The court holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts and absence of supporting medical evidence, warranting acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

The present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2017 and the order of sentence dated 27.07.2017, rendered by learned Ad-hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.247 of 2013/46 of 2017, arising out of Pauthu P.S. Case No.65 of 2010, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo S.I. for six months. The appellant is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:-

2.1. Fardbeyan of Parshu Ram Singh came to be recorded on 22.12.2010 at 03:00 p.m. The informant, who is brother of the deceased, has stated in his fardbeyan that on 22.12.2010 at about 01:30 p.m., he along with his brother, namely, Ram Shlok Singh (deceased) was sowing wheat and labourers were carrying bags of paddy from his field to home. In the meantime, the nephew of the informant, namely, Santosh Kumar, aged about 14 years came with lunch and he along with his deceased brother started taking lunch. In the meantime, two unknown persons, aged about 30-35 years, were watching them. The informant asked them as to where they live. Thereafter the two persons moved towards East upon which the brother of the informant stood up and one of the persons shot fire which hit Ram Shlok Singh in his rib-cage. Thereafter the informant, his brother Ram Shlok Singh and his nephew Santosh Kumar started running towards West. In the meantime, eleven persons from his village, armed with deadly weapons, came there from the eastern side and surrounded them. The brother of the informant Ram Shlok Singh and nephew Santosh Kumar ran towards North and South. It is alleged that thereafter Shambhu Sharma (appellant) and Girdhari Sharma started firing by pistols which they were carrying in their hands which hit the brother of the informant on his right side of neck, chest, right back, forehead, head, leg and right temple. The brother of the informant died instantaneously. All the accused persons fled towards East. The informant further alleged that the reason for the occurrence is land-dispute.

2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, formal FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

2.3. The Investigating Officer thereafter carried out the investigation and during the course of investigation, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and also collected documentary evidence. Thereafter he filed the charge-sheet against the appellant before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the concerned Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.247 of 2013/46 of 2017.

2.4. After conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereby the present appellant has been convicted, as observed hereinabove. The appellant has, therefore, filed the in