The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the reliability of witness statements and the presence of forensic evidence are crucial in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since, common question of facts and law are involved in both these criminal jail appeals, they are being decided by the common judgment.

2. Appellant Sachin has been convicted under section 307 and 394 IPC on 30.11.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2018, State Vs. Sachin by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Haridwar. He has been sentenced on 02.12.2021 as hereunder;

(i) Under Section 307 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

(ii) Under section 394 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has further been directed that the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

The appellant has also been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, “the Arms Act”) on 31.11.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2018, State Vs. Sachin by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has been directed that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month.

3. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 71 of 2021 has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded under Sections 307 and 394 IPC. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 73 of 2021 has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

4. Prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows:-

On 08.07.2017, PW2 Monu, who was Driver in a Container Registration No. HR55F9574 (“the Truck”) was driving the truck from Haridwar to Delhi. At 11:00 in the night, he stopped the truck to answer the call of nature. As he was relieving himself, two boys approached them and demanded money from them. The Conductor gave money, but PW2 Monu objected to it. Those two miscreants fired at PW2 Monu, which hit him on the right side of the stomach. He was seriously injured. A passerby informed the police. The police took PW2 Monu to the Hospital, where he was operated upon. PW1 Bhura, who is brother of PW2 Monu lodged the report on 09.07.2017 at 10:30 AM. A case was lodged. According to the prosecution, on 29.08.2017, upon an information having been received, when the person intercepted, he tried to run away. He was the appellant. When the police questioned him as to why did he try to run away, he disclosed that he had a country-made pistol. A search was made. A country-made pistol with a cartridge stuck on its barrel and a live cartridge was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Rs. 1900/- and a driving license of PW2 Monu and other documents were also recovered. On further questioning, the appellant revealed that he committed loot on 08.07.2017. A recovery memo was then prepared and another case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was lodged against the appellant. After investigation, two separate charge sheets, one under Section 307, 394, 411 IPC and another under Section 25 Arms Act, were submitted against the appellant, which is the basis of the Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2018 and Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2018 respectively.

5. In Session Trial No.13 of 2018, charge under Sections 394, 411, 307 read with 34 IPC was framed on 15.02.2018, to which the appellant denied and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Bhoora, PW2 Monu, PW3 Dr. R.S. Prasad, PW4 Constable Ram Singh, PW5 Sub Inspector Sanjay Sharma, PW6 Sub Inspector Ajay Kumar and PW7 Vijay Kumar. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. In Session Trial No.14 of 2018, charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed on 15.02.2018 to which the appellant denied and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined four witnesses, namely, PW 1 Sub Inspector, Sanjay Sharma, PW2 Sub Inspector Ajay Singh, PW3 Sub Inspector Umesh Negi and PW4 Constable Subhash Bhandari. The appellant was examined und