The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the consistency of the informant's testimony, corroboration by material particulars, and medical evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A. K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2010 passed by Sri R. S. Shukla, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-V, Godda in connection with S.C. No. 100/2008, arising out of Boarijore P.S. Case No. 30/2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 332 of 2005, holding the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months, the learned court below further sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act, both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) dated 31/03/2005, alleging therein that on the night of 30-31/03/2005, at about 01:00 A.M, he alongwith his brother Upendra Mandal and one Rajendra Mandal had gone to Karmatanr to pick Mahua fruits near the field of Samu Marandi, where the appellant Shankar Mandal @ Shakru Mandal, Rajendra Mandal and Katiya Mandal accosted them. Shankar Mandal @ Shakru Mandal fired at his brother Upendra Mandal from a point-blank range on which his brother fell in the field of Samu Marandi. Thereafter, Rajendra Mandal inflicted 2-3 knife blows on his chest. Katiya Mandal gave a knife blow on his cheek. Upendra Mandal died at the place of occurrence.

4. After investigation police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused persons under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. Cognizance of the case was taken under the aforesaid sections on 18.11.2005 by learned C.J.M., Godda. This case was committed to the court of Sessions on 23.04.2008, as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

6. Charge was framed against the appellant on 04.06.2008. The same was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. defence is general denial of occurrence and false implication.

9. On the basis of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

10. Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned lawyer appearing for the appellant has submitted that ocular account of the informant, namely, Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) is contradicted by the medical evidence. It was further submitted that the very presence of Sardi Mandal at the place of occurrence is doubtful, and as such his testimony cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant be set aside.

11. Sri A. K. Tiwary, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) has vividly described the occurrence. He has further submitted that there may be minor contradictions in his statement but he has been consistent on the point of date, time, place and manner of occurrence. It was submitted that informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) has stood the test of cross-examination and there is no incongruity in his statement of such a nature that his evidence should be discarded. Accordingly, it was submitted that the learned court below has rightly held the appellant guilty and the impugned judgment does not require any interference.

12. Now it has to be determined whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant bey