Heard learned amicus curie appointed by the Court for the sole appellant and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. This jail appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2005 and Order of sentence dated 30.07.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 56 of 2004 / S.T.R. 17 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. According to the prosecution story, there is direct allegation against the appellant, Kandey Purty, of committing murder of two persons, including father of the informant by firearm. The informant Lugdi Purty, who is son of one of the deceased Silay Purty, has stated that on 28.10.1995 in the morning his father had gone to another village for performing a worship and at about 4.00 P.M., the informant was going to bring back his father. When he reached near one Sanjay bridge, he saw his father coming with another deceased Sriram Kandai Buru. The accused Kandey Purty, who was standing there, fired firearm upon Sriram Kandai Buru, who fell down on the road. The father of the informant tried to flee away from the place, who was chased and he was also assaulted by firearm, who also fell down. As to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that the accused is the cousin of the informant and there was land dispute between the parties. Two named witnesses had seen the occurrence, and others also assembled there, who were informed about the occurrence. After the occurrence, at about 11.30 P.M. in the night, the informant went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report to the aforesaid effect, which was registered as Mufassil Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 103 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. No. 558 of 1995 and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant.

4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused person's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial.

5. In course of trial the prosecution has examined four witnesses, but the case is supported only by P.W.-1 Lugdi Purty, who is the informant and son of one of the deceased. The other two witnesses, viz., P.W.-2 Deban Purty and P.W.-3 Gono Soy have not supported the case of prosecution and have turned hostile. The Investigating Officer of the case and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead body of the deceased, have not been examined.

6. P.W.-1 Lugdi Purty, who is the informant and son of one of the deceased, had supported the prosecution case as the eye witness to the occurrence, and has stated that while he was going to bring his father, who had gone to perform a worship in another village, and reached near Sanjay river, he saw his father coming along with Sriram and the accused Kandey Purty was standing there. He has stated that accused Kandey Purty assaulted both the deceased by firearm at the same place, who died at the spot. He has stated that there was land dispute between the parties. In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused is his cousin. He has stated that the accused had no enmity with Sriram. His father tried to flee away, but he was chased by the accused and assaulted by firearm, whereupon he also fell down. He denied the suggestion of giving false evidence.

7. P.W.-4 Krishna Sawaiya is the fomal witness, who has proved the F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.-2., t