The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, especially when relying on unreliable witnesses and contradictory evidence.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 29.02.2012 and Order of sentence dated 01.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2005, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-for the said offence. It may be stated that other co-accused facing the trial with the appellant has been acquitted of the charge.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Raghu Raj Singh, the son-in-law of the deceased Munni Devi, recorded on 07.07.2004 at RIMS, Ranchi, at about 08.45 P.M. in the night, wherein, he has stated that he had married Sita Devi, the daughter of the deceased Munni Devi about 18 years ago. He has also stated that about 15 years ago the elder sister of his wife, namely Parwati Devi, had married Suleman Mian. His father-in-law Late Chhatrapal Singh had two marriages. He had three sons from the first marriage and three daughters from his second wife Munni Devi, and in the year 1953, through some panchayati partition, he had given some land to Munni Devi. The informant has stated that the grandsons of the first wife of Late Chhatrapal Singh and Parwati Devi, the elder sister of the wife of the informant, had greedy eyes over the land given to Munni Devi, due to which he was keeping his mother-in-law with him for the last 12 years. The disputed land measuring about 50 acres in different khata numbers, mentioned in the F.I.R., was situated at Khunti, and they were pressurising Munni Devi to transfer the said land in their favour. On 07.07.2004 at about 07:45 P.M., the informant was at his house along with his family members when the accused persons, viz., Suleman Mian, Hira Lal Singh, Tirtu Singh, Somra Lohra, Bandhu Mahto and Chitranjan Mahto, all of them armed with pistols, came and they started firing pistol threatening Munni Devi that if she does not transfer the land in their favour, she would be killed, and Suleman Mian fired the pistol injuring Munni Devi on her chest. Hira Lal Singh fired pistol which injured Priya Kumari, the daughter of the informant aged about eight years, injuring her in thigh. Upon the alarm raised by the informant and family members, the neighbouring persons started assembling, whereupon, the accused persons fled away firing pistols and taking the benefit of darkness. The informant brought his mother-in-law and daughter for treatment to RIMS, Ranchi, where his mother-in-law was declared dead and his daughter was being treated. It has been stated that the occurrence had taken place at the behest of Parwati Devi, the wife of Suleman Mian, due to the land dispute between the parties. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1970 of 2004, was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons. Since the other accused persons are not before us and only the accused Suleman Mian is before us, we are confining ourselves to the charge and the evidence against him only. Charge was framed against the accused Suleman Mian for the offences under Sections 302, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had condu