The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. as well Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2019 passed by Shri Swarn Shanker Prasad, learned Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. (AHD)-cum-Special Court (CAW), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 420 of 2017/T.R. No. 71 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Shiv Brat Sahu recorded on 26.01.2017 wherein it has been stated that on the same day at 3.45 p.m. he was in his shop Krishi Kendra-cum-Anokhi Telecom along with his wife Basanti Devi when all of a sudden Pankaj Kumar Sahu (appellant) entered into his shop and started indiscriminate firing as a result of which he sustained two firearm injuries on his left hand and his wife was struck with 3-4 bullets on her abdomen. The accused thereafter fled away and in course of fleeing the brother of the informant, namely, Madhu Sahu was also fired upon, but he had a providential escape. The informant and his wife were taken to RIMS where their treatment is going on. The informant has claimed that Pankaj Kumar Sahu along with his accomplice Lalu @ Nitesh Gope under a conspiracy have repeatedly tried to commit the murder of the informant.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Pithoria P.S. Case No. 14/2017 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 324, 326, 307 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act against Pankaj Kumar Sahu and Lalu @ Nitesh Gope. Charge-sheet was submitted against Pankaj Kumar Sahu while investigation was kept pending against Lalu @ Nitesh Kumar Sahu and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2017. Charge was framed against the accused person for the offences punishable u/s 324, 326, 307 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as ten (10) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Gutan Oraon has stated that on 26.01.2017 at 4 p.m. he had gone to purchase seed from the shop of Shiv Brat Sahu. Shiv Brat Sahu as well as his wife were present in the shop. He has stated that a man wearing a helmet had entered in the shop and started firing from his pistol as a result of which Shiv Brat Sahu and his wife suffered firearm injuries. The person who had fired was named Pankaj.

In cross examination he has deposed that he does not know about the incident and has stated whatever has been heard by him.

P.W. 2 Uttam Kumar has stated that the incident is of 27.01.2017 at 9 am and he had gone to Krishi Kendra, the shop of Shivbrat Sahu on seeing the presence of Police. A seizure list was prepared of empty cartridges in which he had signed as a witness. He has identified his signature in the seizure list which has been marked as Exbt-1. He had heard that on the previous day Pankaj had fired upon Shivbrat Sahu and his wife.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he was not present when the incident had occurred.

P.W.3 Ajay Mahto has stated that on 27.01.2017 at 09:00AM he and the others were taking a walk when he saw the presence of Police in front of the shop of Shivbrat Sahu. He found the Police involved in investigation and seizure was made of five spent cartridges and two front portion of a cartridge made of copper. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exbt.-1/1. He had heard that firing was done at th