The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for wholly reliable eyewitness testimony and the prosecution's burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in a murder trial.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. Heard Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel Amicus Curiae for appellant and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the state.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, District Meerut, in Session Trial No.664 of 2010(in Case Crime No.665 of 2009) (State of U.P. Vs. Ajayraj @ Raja and others) convicting accused-appellant, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that P.W.1, Vinod Kalanjari, gave first information the police authority stating therein that at around 6:15 in the morning of 1.12.2009, three unknown young persons barged in his house at Kalanjari Gaon and fired indiscriminately with the intention to cause death of his younger brother Subodh Kumar, as a consequence of which his brother received grievous injuries and accused persons escaped firing aerial shots. He carried his injured brother with the help of his family members and villagers to K.M.C. Hospital for treatment and got him admitted where his treatment is going on and he continues to be critical.

4. The then Constable Clerk PW-3 at P.S. Jani had prepared Chik First Information Report Ex Ka-4 for the offence under Sec. 307 at 8:05 in the morning itself of 1-12-09 on the basis of aforesaid written complaint. Entry of the aforesaid was done by constable clerk PW-12 posted at P.S. Jani in report no. 14 of the G.D. on the same day at 8.05 in the morning as Ex Ka-13. Case was comitted u/s 302 of IPC after the death of injured during treatment, postmortem was done.

5. On being summoned, the accused-person pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The offence for which accused was charged was triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the accused-appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 of IPC.

6. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses who are as follows :

7. In support of ocular version following documents were filed :

8. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

9. Learned amicus curiae for appellant first of all submitted that there is no eye witness in this case. All the witnesses of fact are planted. PW-1 (Vinod Kumar) informant has admitted in his testimony that he was not present at the place of occurrence when the alleged occurrence had taken place. P.W.-4(Radha) is the wife of the deceased, she has narrated the incident in her examination-in-chief. In her examination-in-chief she has deposed that she and her husband together came out of gate. If it was so how she c