JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar J.

1. In Sessions Trial No.86 of 2010, the appellant has faced the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and section 27 of the Arms Act for committing murder of Anup Prajapati. He was convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 302 IPC and RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Garhwa P.S. Case No. 30 of 2010 was lodged on 10.02.2010 against Vikash Gaur @ Vikash Gond, the appellant. The informant who is the mother of Anup Prajapati has stated in her fardbeyan which was recorded at 07:00 AM on 10.02.2010 in OPD of Sadar Hospital, Garhwa that in the evening of 09.02.2010 she had gone with her son to attend marriage ceremony of the daughter of Bharat Mahto. At about 10:00 PM, when Dwarpuja was being performed Vikash Gaur @ Vikash Gond who was walking with her son fired at him. When she raised hulla (cries) that Vikash Gaur has shot her son the persons around there including few on the side of the bridegroom carried her son on a Jeep to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, where he was declared brought dead. During the investigation the elder son of the informant and her neighbours including the sons of Bharat Mahto were examined and they supported the informant that Vikash Gaur had fired at Anup Prajapati. Dr. Ram Naresh Singh Diwakar who conducted the post-mortem examination has found one lacerated wound of the size of 1 "x 1/2", cavity deep, on the right iliac fossa. On dissection, he removed one metallic piece from the iliac bone. In his opinion, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by firearm injury. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and, as noticed above, a charge under section 302 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act was framed which he has denied and claimed the trial.

3. In the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of whom the informant is PW6. Three witnesses viz. PW1-Vinay Mahto, PW2-Pradeep Prajapati and PW3-Ramashish Mahto are the sons of Bharat Mahto; PW4-Ashok Prajapati is cousin brother of the deceased and; PW5-Pradeep Prajapati is elder son of the informant. PW5 has claimed that his brother told him name of the assailant and he was with him when his brother was taken to the hospital by Ashok Prajapati and others. On behalf of the accused four witnesses were examined who have deposed in the Court that Vikash Gaur was not present at the place of occurrence and there was firing by the barratis at the time of Dwarpuja. The learned Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa has held that PW4 and PW5 have fully supported the informant who is a reliable and trustworthy witness; there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report; ocular evidence is sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence, and; defence witnesses have not spoken the truth. The learned trial Judge has discussed testimony of the informant in the following manner:

"14. During the course of argument, it was also submitted on behalf of the accused person that PW 6 Kumaria Kuwar is not fully reliable. It was submitted that she has once stated that her son Anup Prajapati had died on the spot and on the other place, she says that he died during the course of treatment at the hospital. Besides, it was further submitted that she is the sole eye witness. Therefore, her evidence should be taken carefully. But in my view, she is reliable witness. On perusal of her statement it appears that she has given a natural scene of the occurrence. There was a marriage of the daughter of Bharat Mahto and she had been invited as has been stated by her. She has stated, in para 4 of her statement that first she went in the house of Bharat Mahto. But thereafter, she returned out. At that time, she had gone alone. She had come out before the Dwarpuja was to be performed. It was at about 9.45 PM. There were 100-150 people including men and women. She was standing with her son. She has given name of some p