The conviction for murder cannot be sustained without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.1995 / 11.08.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that the informant’s daughter Anita Devi (since deceased) was married with one Sanjal Prasad in February, 1993. It is alleged that Anita Devi returned from her sasural to her parental house on 26.02.1993. It is further stated that prior to marriage of Anita Devi with Sanjal Prasad, the appellant Babloo Rout was desiring to marry with her, which could not be solemnized, hence, he was having animous against the Anita Devi. It is further alleged that on 06.04.1993 at about 8:30 PM, the informant Laxmi Devi (P.W.-1) along with daughter Anita Devi (deceased) and another daughter Kalpana Kumari (P.W.-8) after taking dinner were talking with each other, meanwhile, electricity supply went off and lamp was lighting in the room. Suddenly, the appellant rushed in the room with a pistol in his hand and shot on Anita Devi at a close distance, exalting that he has come to take bidagiri of the deceased. The deceased sustained firearm injury, causing fracture of the scalp and also sustained injury over forehead and near the eyes. The informant (P.W.-1) and Kalpana Kumar (P.W.-8) tried to catch hold of the appellant, but he managed to flee away dropping his pistol in the room of the informant. It is also alleged that the informant, her daughter and other family members raised hulla and chased the appellant and also saw his associate Dinesh Gupta, who was standing outside the house and both were fleeing away towards Pedagalli. The deceased was brought to Hospital, but was declared dead by the Doctor.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan (Exhibit-2) of the informant, the formal FIR (Exhibit-3) was registered as Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 70 of 1993 (G.R. No. 355 of 1993) for the offence under Section 302 / 120B / 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused namely, Babloo Rout and Dinesh Gupta. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions; where above Sessions Case was registered and the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:-

Exhibit-1 : Signature of Laxmi Devi on fardbeyan.

Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Badri Narayan Sah on the seizure list.

Exhibit-2 : Fardbeyan.

Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R.

Exhibit-4 : Post Mortem Report of deceased Anita Devi.

Exhibit-5 : Report of Sergeant Major.

Exhibit-6 : Seizure List.

Exhibit-7 : Carbon copy of inquest report of Anita Devi.

Exhibit-