Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant evidentiary value in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and order of sentence dated 30.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur at Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 365 of 2014 arising out of Paliganj P.S. Case No. 101 of 2003 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 326 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and also under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for six months. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months imprisonment each. Further, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Chandradeo Singh gave his fardbeyan on 01.08.2003 at 11:30 AM to the effect that on 31.07.2003, he was sleeping in his house along with his other family members. In the midnight at about 12:45 AM, he woke up after hearing some sound and saw that three accused persons entered in his house with the help of a ladder. The informant identified the three accused persons as Sharwan Singh (appellant), Sitaram Singh and Upendra Paswan in the light of lantern. Further the case of the prosecution is that accused Sharwan Singh had got pistol and sharp cutting weapon (pahsul) in his hand and Sitaram and Upendra Paswan were having pistol in their hands. Accused Sharwan Singh shot down the son of the informant, namely, Raju Singh while he was sleeping and thereafter all the accused persons reached near the wife of the informant. It is alleged that accused Sharwan Singh repeatedly assaulted her by a sharp cutting weapon (pahsul) due to which the wife of the informant was seriously injured. The informant screened himself in the bathroom and due to fear he did not come outside and came out only after all the accused persons fled away after committing the occurrence.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the police registered Paliganj P.S. Case No. 101 of 2003 on 01.08.2003 under Section 324, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

5. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against three named accused persons under Sections 324, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

6. Learned ACJM took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . Thereafter, a petition was filed by the Investigating Officer before the court below stating therein that accused Sharwan Singh is in judicial custody at Gaya in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 83 of 2005 by changing his name as Ravi Singh. Thereafter, a production warrant was issued by the learned court below and on th