IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of direct evidence, the presence or absence of motive is less significant, and credible eyewitness testimony can suffice to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 19th December, 2017 and 23rd December, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2012, arising out of Muffasil Police Station Case No.02 of 2012 (G.R. No.05 of 2012), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that there are no eye witness, who had seen this appellant firing upon the deceased. As per him, all the witnesses, who deposed before the Court had reached the place of occurrence after the deceased was shot at, thus, those witnesses are unreliable. He submits that motive is absolutely missing in this case. He argues that it is the prosecution case that the deceased in injured state had divulged before the witnesses that it is this appellant, who shot at him, but it is doubtful whether the deceased was in a state of giving such statement or not. Though it is alleged that the murder weapon was recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant, yet murder weapon was not sent for any scientific forensic examination. He submits that the bullet which was found in the body of the deceased was not matched with the murder weapon, which is fatal for the prosecution. He also argues that the recovery on the basis of alleged confessional statement should not be considered by this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses would clearly suggest that it is this appellant, who had committed the murder. Eye witnesses have seen this appellant, with a fire arm in his hand, leaving the room where the deceased and the appellant were there. He submits that the deceased disclosed that it is this appellant who had committed the murder. Thus, there is no room to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses. Since there are eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced him.

4. The case of the prosecution is based on the fardbeyan of the informant, Sanjay Malua son of Suresh Malua, resident of Narseda, Tola Mundasai, PS Muffasil, District West Singhbhum, which was recorded by the Sub Inspector, B.D. Mishra on 02.01.2012.

In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that at about 07.00 p.m. in the evening one boy namely Soma Soy came running to him and informed that younger son of the informant Birendra Malua @ Laila has been shot at in the house of Nasir Malua by his friend Singrai Tanti @ Rodeya (appellant) resident of Saligutu and after firing appellant has fled away. On getting this information, the informant rushed to the place and saw his brother in an injured and unconscious state. There he was told by Sanju Malua that just now Singrai Tanti @ Rodeya (appellant) has fired on Birendra Malua (deceased) and fled away. Informant with the help of villagers took his brother for treatment to Chaibasa where the doctors declared him dead. He brought the dead body of his brother to his home. There in course of queries, he was told by Sanju Malua and Soma Soy that at around 6.30 p.m. in the evening Sanju Malua, Soma Soy