IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; weak witness identification leads to acquittal.

-

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST (P.O.A) Act, Buxar, in SC/ST case no. 173/2021, arising out of Brahmpur (Krishna Brahm) P.S. case no. 84/2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A) Act and has been sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five Thousand) under Section 307 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, appellant will have to suffer additional imprisonment for six months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for four years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) under Section 452 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, appellant will have to suffer additional imprisonment of four months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/-(Two Thousand) under Section 27 of Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine, appellant will have to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) under Section 3 (i) (xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A) Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will have to suffer additional imprisonment of two months. The learned trial court ordered that all the sentenced shall run concurrently except the default sentences.

3. As per prosecution case, informant has narrated the story that while he was sleeping alongwith his family in the intervening night of 25/26.05.2003 near about 12:30 AM, he woke up and saw 3 – 4 persons entered in the house of informant. When informant asked them about their identity, they asked the informant to remain silent and go to sleep, as a result of which informant got afraid. In the meanwhile, informant’s wife woke up after hearing the noise and she also enquired about the persons. It is alleged that informant identified one person as younger son of late Naga Yadav of Lalee Ke Dera (Soa) village but informant does not know the name of the said person. It is further alleged that when the informant turned on the torch, he identified the face of the said person but he did not know the name of the said person and the said miscreant fired bullet which hit upon arm and chest of informant’s wife and blood started oozing out. It is further alleged that informant was also hit by bullet in his left arm and blood started oozing out.

4. On the basis of fardebayan of informant (P.W.2), Brahmpur (Krishna brahm) P.S. Case No. 84 of 2003 has been instituted under Section 324 , 448, 307, 34 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against younger son of late Naga Yadav of village – Soa, Lalee Ke Dera (appellant herein). During the course of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Sections 452, 324, 307, 34 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act alongwith Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act and cognizance has been taken under the aforesaid sections. Charge has been framed on 04.08.2006 against the appellant under Sections 324 , 307, 452, of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act. Thereafter the charges have been read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claime