Witness testimony can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt when consistent with physical evidence, even in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence.

1. The Appellant Lalu Sindhi is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Satna, in Sessions Trial No.167/1998 by which he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for an offence under S.302 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- and a further rigorous imprisonment of two months in default of fine. He has also been convicted for the offence under S.25 and S.27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively and fine of Rs.200/- and 300/- in default of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month each.

2. Criminal Appeal No.181/2003 has been filed by the State, which is aggrieved by the acquittal of the co - accused / Rajesh Senani and Anil Kanojiya, by the learned Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The deceased is Jagdish Prasad Asati. He along with his son Dilip Gupta (P.W.1), operate a sweet shop under the name and style of "Kaka Sweet Mart" in Satna. As per Dilip Gupta (P.W.1), on 28.8.1998 at around 6.00 a.m, Dilip Gupta and his father Jagdish Prasad Asati went to the shop to open it for the day's business. At that time, the Appellant Lalu Sindhi alias Dayaldas, came to the scene of crime on a motorcycle with two other co - accused persons namely Rajesh Senani and Anil Kanojiya. The co - accused Anil Kanojiya was riding the motorcycle and the Appellant was sitting in the middle and co - accused Rajesh Senani was sitting behind the Appellant. The Appellant got off the motorcycle, stuck a firearm to the nape of the deceased and fired a shot and thereafter got on the motorcycle and the three of them rode away.

4. Dilip Gupta (P.W.1) says that he witnessed the incident along with Abdul Aziz (P.W.2), Mohd. Tej (P.W.3) and Guddu alias Shamim (P.W.4). Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that, the trial Court has arrived at the finding that P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are not reliable and, therefore, has rejected their testimony and has convicted the Appellant only on the statement of Dilip Gupta (P.W.1).

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Appellant is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated. He further stated that the actual incident took place between the intervening night of 27 and 28/8/1998 and not in the morning of 28.8.1998 as is stated by the prosecution. He further submits that the statement of Dilip Gupta (P.W.1) is, with its share of embellishments and contradictions, unworthy of reliance. He also submits that a trident like weapon was used to first make a puncture wound on the nape and thereafter, the deceased was shot through the same puncture made by the trident like weapon, while the witness only says that the deceased was only shot and does not speak of any assault on the deceased with a trident like weapon. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, the medical evidence that has come on record is at complete variance with the ocular testimony of the eyewitness Dilip Gupta (P.W.1) and that the benefit of this ought to have gone to the accused.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has argued in both the criminal appeals and has submitted on behalf of the state that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1716/2002 is just and proper based upon a correct appreciation of the facts on record. However, the learned counsel for the State also submits that the State is aggrieved by the acquittal of Rajesh Senani and Anil Kanojiya, who according to the learned counsel for the State harboured the same common intention with