The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, affirming that convictions must be based on reliable and corroborative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

2. The father of the deceased (PW-3) is the informant whose fardbeyan recorded by the SHO Samol Kant Jha (PW-5) Tariyani PS on 03.01.2021 at 10:00 pm at the house of Ram Narayan Mahto (PW-1) of Sultanpur Hurrahia, is the basis for registration of Tariyani P.S. Case No. 01 of 2012 disclosing commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 , 120B and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

3. Briefly narrated, according to the informant, he was returning after irrigating his field in the evening and the moment he reached near the house of Ram Narayan Mahto (PW-1), he heard several rounds of firing. Thereafter, he noticed that this appellant, accused Lalu Sahni were firing indiscriminately upon his son (deceased). The deceased fell down after sustaining fire arm injuries and started wriggling with pain. Soon thereafter, accused Sukhari Sahni started his motorcycle on which accused Lalu Sahni and the appellant sat and they proceeded towards South. They again returned near the place of occurrence and proceeded towards their village Adalpur. Upon hearing the sounds of gunshots and the screams of the informant, several persons including his son Sashi Bhushan Kumar (PW-11) came. All of them witnessed the accused persons fleeing away on the motorcycle who were brandishing pistols. As the informant reached near the deceased, he (the deceased) told the informant that appellant had shot at him, whereafter he breathed his last. The informant alleged that about 2-3 months ago the appellant was persuading the deceased to join his gang which was declined by the deceased which fact the deceased had also disclosed to the informant. Further, one of the accused Jaggarnath Sah had come to the house of the informant and threatened the deceased. The informant alleged that the wife of accused Jaggarnath Sah was in regular touch with the appellant and the appellant also used to visit Sumitra Devi (an accused) which the deceased always used to object. This was the reason behind the accused persons killing the deceased. He also suspected that conspiracy to kill was hatched up by Jaggarnath Sah and his wife Sumitra Devi, the daugther-in-law of Kishori Mahto.

4. Subsequently, chargesheet was submitted upon completion of investigation by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . After taking cognizance of the offences, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT against the appellant, co-accused Lalu Sahni, co-accused Kanti Devi and Jaggarnath Sah.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses out of whom PW-1 Ram Narayan M