The court established that the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially those with a history of enmity towards the accused, must be scrutinized carefully, and that the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge in this appeal:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.07.1998 and order of sentence dated 14.07.1998 passed in S.T. No. 434 of 1994 arising out of Jugsalai (Burmamines) P.S. Case No. 9 of 1994 by the Court of Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and further he has been convicted under Section 27 Arms and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302/34 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Story:

2. The prosecution story is based upon the fardbeyan of the Dilip Chhatriya (P.W.-3), whose statement was recorded on 22.01.1994 at Santoshi Mandir, situated near the furniture shop of Parmod Sharma at Baba Kuti near Aata Chakki P.S. Burmamines, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

3. The gist of the allegations as unfolded in the Fardbeyan is as under:-

The informant had stated that on 22.01.1994 in the evening he had gone to the house of the deceased Patal Das for watching T.V. program at 7:30 pm. Upon the request made by Patal's mother to call and bring the deceased, he went out for the said purpose. In course of searching out the deceased, when the informant reached near Santoshi Mandir, he found the deceased talking with Pramod Sharma with respect to making of an Ulna, at Pramod Sharma's furniture shop. He asked the deceased to go home as his mother was calling him whereupon he told the informant to wait. In the meantime when the informant was going towards a lane situated at the southern side of the said shop to urinate, he noticed that this accused with a pistol in his hand in the company of another accused, namely, Anji Rao reached at the said shop and pushed the deceased as a result of which he fell down inside the shop and upon that it is alleged that this accused caught hold of the deceased and by placing the pistol on left side of his neck, he opened fire. Thereafter, upon the instigation of this accused, Anji Rao threw a bomb like object on the back of the deceased which burst out. Thereafter, when the deceased was struggling for his life in a pool of blood, both the accused persons fled away. Pramod Sharma and his father Sitaram Sharma were said to have seen the occurrence. Upon halla, many people gathered there including the family members of the deceased. The motive of the occurrence is said to be the enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused, Bijay Yadav, which is said to be going on from before. It is said that about a month before the occurrence, Matia Yadav (the brother of the appellant Bijay Yadav) was murdered and, in the case, filed in that connection, the younger brother of the deceased Patal Das was also one of the accused persons and for that reason it is said that the present occurrence had taken place at the hands of the accused person.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardabeyan disclosing the aforesaid story, the F.I.R. was lodged at Jugsalai (Burmamines) P.S. and the same was being numbered as Jugsalai (Burmamines) P.S.Case No. 0009/94 under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and further under sections 3/4 of the Explosive S