The prosecution must establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies significantly weaken the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Brief facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the instant appeal are that on 5.7.2013 Karu @ Rajpal with his wife Ruma Devi, his elder brother Satyapal and his brother-in-law Karan Singh (Sala) was going from his Sasural at Khetapur to his village at Tikra in a bullock cart which is also called Danlap. At around 7:00pm three persons riding upon a motorcycle came from behind and asked them to stop the bullock cart. As per the first information report lodged by Satyapal, three miscreants had a scuffle with Karu and Satyapal and when they were reluctant to stop the bullock cart one person sitting on the motorcycle fired with an intention to kill Karu with a country made pistol. The shot hit the left side of the chest of Karu. After having fired, the three miscreants ran away on the motorcycle towards Tikara. The three of them, it has been stated in the first information report, were not very aged persons. The first informant could not recognize them. He has stated in the first information report that the dead body of the deceased was lying at the spot and he had gone to get the first information report lodged and he had requested for an investigation. Upon the lodging of the first information report, investigation commenced. It has been stated by the P.W.-8 that during the investigation on 7.7.2013 on the statement having been given by Ruma, the case which was earlier registered under Section 302 IPC was also registered for Section 394 IPC. Thereafter, it has been stated that on 14.7.2013 when a call came from the first informant Satyapal on the CUG number of the police, the accused Sarpal was apprehended. At the time of his arrest, he had, as per the recovery memo prepared on 14.7.2013, taken the names of Ram Babu s/o Rameshwar and Mukesh son of Sompal Singh and had stated that these persons had accompanied him at the time when he had killed Karu @ Rajpal. During the arrest of the accused, a country made pistol was recovered and, therefore, the case had an added Section for investigation under Section 25 of the Arms Act and since the Kadas (silver bangles) of Ruma were recovered, Section 411 IPC was also added.

2. Investigation thereafter commenced and the Police forwarded two separate charge sheets. In one charge sheet, charges were framed under Section 302, 394 and 411 IPC and in the other, charges were framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi, Moradabad, framed charges against Sarpal under Sections 302/34, 394, 411 of I.P.C. Similarly, on the very same day, by a separate charge-sheet, Sarpal was charge-sheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. When the accused had denied the charges, the case was put to trial. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution produced as many as ten prosecution witnesses.

4. PW-1, Mahendra Pal Singh, who scribed the first information report, has stated that on the dictation of the PW-4 Satyapal, the first information report was written down by him for being lodged before the Police Station and that the first information report was dictated, in fact, at the Thana.

5. PW-2, Rooma Devi, who was the wife of the deceased, has in her examination-in-chief stated that the incident had occurred while she was going from her Mayka to her Sasural at Tikra and in between when they had crossed Faridpur and had reached Bahroli, three persons on a motorcycle had accosted the bullock cart and approached her husband and asked about some directions etc. One out of the three miscreants had a scuffle with her husband and pulled him out of the bullock cart. She states that at the time of the incident she was wearing two silver kadas (silver bangles) and one of the three accused persons pulled out the silver bangles and, because of the fact that she was frighted she gave the other one also of her own accord. She, in her statement, takes the name of one Mukesh, whose name she states was mentioned by one of miscreants and she further states that Mukesh was exhort