The quality of evidence is paramount, and the testimony of a single witness can suffice if found entirely reliable. The establishment of common intention under Section 34 I.P.C. requires a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. - [COMMON INTENTION, MEDICAL EVIDENCE, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY] - [Section 302/34 I.P.C.] - The court found the prosecution's case to be established beyond reasonable doubt based on the credible and trustworthy evidence of the sole eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence. The accused were convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for the murder committed in furtherance of their common intention. However, the charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, leading to its setting aside.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution's case unfolded with an FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased, stating that the accused, with whom the deceased had land disputes, chased and fatally shot the deceased. The sole eyewitness, the brother of the deceased, provided consistent and reliable evidence of the occurrence. The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimony, establishing the cause of death as haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injuries.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the prosecution's case to be established beyond reasonable doubt based on the credible and trustworthy evidence of the sole eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence. The accused were convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for the murder committed in furtherance of their common intention. However, the charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, leading to its setting aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the sufficiency of evidence to establish common intention, and the failure to prove the charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the quality of evidence over the number of witnesses, holding that the testimony of a single witness can suffice if found entirely reliable. The court also clarified the requirement of a pre-arranged plan to establish common intention under Section 34 I.P.C. The court's decision highlighted the need for credible and trustworthy evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was confirmed, while the conviction under Section 307/34 I.P.C. was set aside. The accused were directed to serve the remaining sentence, and their case was recommended for remission after 14 years of incarceration.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 07.10.2009 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 270 of 2000 arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2002, P.S.-Sahpur, District-Gorakhpur convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment further imposing fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 307/34 I.P.C. to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story unfolds with an FIR lodged at P.S. Shahpur, District-Gorakhpur on the basis of written report given on 22.03.2002 at 19 p.m. by Muneshwar Mahto, S/o Sipahi Mehto, brother of the deceased. It was narrated in the written report by the informant that he as well as his brothers Suraj Mehto and Rameshwar Mehto work as sales men in the bakery. The accused persons Umesh Mehto and Krishna Mehto, who happen to be their relatives have been on inimical terms on account of some land disputes and litigation. On 22.03.2002 at about 5:30 pm when he and his brother Suraj Mehto were coming to the city Gorakhpur from Pipraich after finishing their duty, the accused persons Umesh Mehto and Krishna Mehto chased them by motor cycle and surrounded both of them in front of the farm of Jitendra Jaiswal near Padri Bazar Kasba. Both the accused persons got down from the motor cycle and opened fire with country made pistols upon the informant and his brother Suraj Mehto. When they rushed from the spot to save themselves, the accused persons fired upon his brother Suraj Mehto who fell down in the wheat field and died. The accused persons fled away on motorcycle. The informant Muneshwar Mehto and the people nearby witnessed the occurrence. On the basis of the written report Exhibit A-1 given by the informant Muneshwar Mehto, Chik FIR Exhibit A-4 was prepared by Cons. Moharrir Saroj Kumar on 22.3.2002 at 19 pm and its entry was made in the G.D. rapat number 37, Exhibit A-5 at the same time.

3. The investigation was started and the inquest report Exhibit A-2 was prepared on 23.03.2002, the papers required for post mortem Exhibit A-7 to A-11 were also prepared and the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was performed by doctor V.K. Dubey on 23.3.2002 who prepared the autopsy report Exhibit A-3 and found the following anti mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

(i) fire arm wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side chest 5 cm lateral to right nipple margin inverted, blackening and charring present in an area 14 cm x 7 cm

(ii) fire arm wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on left side chest 5 cm. Below to left nipple margins everted.

(iii) fire arm wound of entry ¾ cm x ½ cm on medial side of right upper arms in. Middle margin inverted.

(iv) fire arm wound of exit 1 cm x 1 cm on lateral side of right upper arm in middle, margins inverted.

Internal Examination

Right and left pleura were found punctured. Both lungs were also punctured. Clotted blood about 1-1/2 litre was found present in thoracic cavity, eyes and mouth closed, rigor mortis present on both limbs.

Cause of death in his opinion was haemorrhage and shock due to anti mortem injuries.

4. The I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses of fact and formal witnesses, prepared map Exhibit A-13 after spot inspection and after completing the investigation charge sheet Exhibit A-6 was submitted to the Court.

5. The case of the accused persons after their appearance before the Court being exclusively triable by Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 27.6.2002.

6. The charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons who denied of the charges and claimed to be tried.