Sujoy Paul, J. :

In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973, the appellant has called in question the legality,

2

validity and propriety of the impugned judgment dated 6^th January 2012,

passed in S.T. No.383 of 2009, whereby he has been convicted for

committing offence under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of

the Arms Act and directed to undergo the sentence of Life Imprisonment

for committing offence of murder and three years RI relating to offence

under the provisions of Arms Act with fine and default stipulation. The

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual backdrop :

2.

As per prosecution story, the deceased, Princy Jain was residing in

Room No.307 of Vindhshri Girls Hostel, M.P. Nagar, Zone-2, Bhopal.

She was a student of First Year in B.E.T. College. Basically, Princy Jain

was a resident of Ganjbasoda. On 2.3.2009, at around 6.30 pm, she left

the said hostel alongwith her friend Shefali Goel. They were going to

attend computer coaching class in Zone -2, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. When

they entered a lane near Computer Class, the appellant Sulabh Jain came

there with a bag and told Princy that she may do whatever she wants to

do and immediately fired on her back. With a gunshot sound, Princy fell

down. The appellant fled away from the place of incident. Akhilesh

Mishra (PW-6) and Shailendra Dwivedi (PW-7) reached the place of

incident and took Princy to the City Hospital. After examining her, the

3

Doctors declared her as dead. A Police report was lodged in the Police

Station, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. During the investigation, a spot map was

prepared. The post-mortem report revealed that reason of death is

hemorrhage because of gunshot injury. Thus, death of Princy was

admittedly homicidal in nature. The appellant was arrested and during

investigation, as per information furnished by him, a country made pistol

was recovered by the Police.

3.

The hand-bag of Princy Jain was recovered from the place of

incident. Apart from other material, a letter was also found in the said

bag, which was in-fact an application to the Police Authorities regarding

the conduct of Sulabh Jain with a prayer to take appropriate action against

the appellant. From the room of deceased in the hostel, her laptop and a

diary was recovered. As per the prosecution case, the signature of Princy

Jain in the said letter written to Police tallies with her signature contained

in the diary.

4.

An empty cartridge was recovered from the place of incident,

which was duly sealed and sent for scientific analysis to Forensic Science

Laboratory (FSL), Sagar. The Senior Scientists, in turn, opined that the

bullet is indeed fired from the weapon (country made pistol) recovered at

the instance of the appellant.

4

5.

The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. He denied

the allegation that he had one sided love affair with the deceased. On the

contrary, there is a previous enmity between his and deceased’s family

because of which Om Prakash (PW-15), father of deceased falsely

arraigned him in criminal case from which he has already been acquitted.

6.

The trial court framed four issues and decided the same in the

impugned judgment.

7.

The court below after considering the evidence led by the parties,

opined that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the appellant was convicted for committing offence under

Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After

hearing the parties on the quantum of punishment, the court below passed

the aforesaid sentence mentioned in the impugned judgment.

The Argument of appellant :

8.

Shri Anvesh Jain and Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that prosecution produced as many as sixteen

prosecution witnesses. Spot map was proved by Meena Pandey (PW-1).

Her statement shows that she is not the eye-witness. On the next date of

the incident, the spot map, (Ex.P/1) was brought to her notice by the

5

Police Authorities and h