Conviction for murder requires credible eyewitness testimony, which may include family members; inconsistencies do not inherently discredit such testimonies when corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-11-2017 (sentence passed on 07-12-2017) passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 255 /2010 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27(1) ARMS ACT and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. The appellant has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27(1) ARMS ACT and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sachit Sahi recorded on 30-09-2008 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 5:45PM, he was standing outside his house and his brother Manchit Sahi was coming home from the western side. As soon as the brother of the informant reached near his house, he was surrounded by Pratap Sahi (appellant), Ajay Singh, Avinash Singh, Mohan Singh and 4 unknown persons. Pratap Sahi asked the brother of the informant about the whereabouts of his father and on refusal, Pratap Sahi had taken out a pistol from his waist and fired at the brother of the informant and when his brother tried to flee away, he was stripped by Achal Singh as a result of which he fell down. The two persons accompanying Pratap Sahi had also fired at the brother of the informant when he fell down and Pratap Sahi had once again fired at him. The accused persons thereafter fled away. The brother of the informant was taken to Referral Hospital, Mandar where doctors declared him dead. The reason for the occurrence is the demand of share by Pratap Sahi of a piece of land which was purchased by the father of the informant.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mandar P.S. Case No. 88/2008 was instituted under Section 302 /34 IPC and Section 27 ARMS ACT . On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 255/2010. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 /34 IPC and section 27 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 eleven witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Dev Sagar Sahi is the father of the deceased Manchit Sahi who has stated that on 30-09-2008 at 5:30PM, Manchit Sahi was coming when he was surrounded by Pratap Sahi, Avinash Singh and Ajay Singh along with four unknown persons. Pratap Sahi had fired at his son and when he tried to flee, he was tripped by Ajay Singh after which Pratap Sahi shot at his temple and the accused persons fled away. Manchit Sahi was taken to Referral Hospital, Mandar where he was declared dead. Pratap Sahi used to demand a share in his self-acquired property for which he used to give threats. Since he did not give a share to Pratap Sahi, the incident had occurred. He has proved his signature as well as the signature of Sachit Sahi on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 1 and 1/1 respectively. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the murder had taken place at a distance of 20 meters from his house. Several villag