The court emphasized that a single credible witness's testimony is sufficient for conviction, even with investigative lapses, provided it establishes the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 20.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge – 1^st, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 464 of 2006, arising out of Gogri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 387 of IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 387 of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and also fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act . All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.04.2006 at 04:45 A.M., the informant (PW-4) was returning after attending the call of nature, and upon reaching north of Kali Asthan, about 100 yards ahead of the basa of Ram Sao in village Fudkichak, the appellant Ajay Yadav allegedly surrounded the informant while holding a pistol. The appellant questioned the informant as to why he and members of his caste had failed to fulfill the demand of rangdari amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. When the informant expressed his inability to pay the said amount due to his poor economic condition, the appellant allegedly fired at him with the pistol, causing injury to the left thigh near the scrotum, as a result of which the informant fell down in a seriously injured condition. It is further alleged that Shiv Shankar Sharma (PW-2), Suresh Sharma (PW-3) and several other persons were present at the place of occurrence and they witnessed the incident. While narrating the prosecution story, it was further reiterated that on 20.04.2006 at about 6:00 A.M., Sudhir Yadav, the elder brother of the appellant, came to the informant while the informant was going to attend the call of nature and stated that appellant Ajay Yadav was demanding money. He allegedly ordered the informant and other members of his community to pay the demanded amount, failing which they would face dire consequences and would be driven out of the village. It is further alleged that while some persons were taking the injured informant to the hospital, the appellant again intercepted them on the way and threatened the informant not to lodge an F.I.R., failing which the appellant would kill the entire family of the informant.

4. On the basis of fardbayan recorded by the informant/PW-4, Gogri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2006 dated 21.04.2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 386, 387, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act was lodged. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Sections 341, 386, 387, 307 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance under aforementioned Sections of the IPC. The case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act . Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and cla