The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies and investigative lapses led to reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 12-12-2025

This Criminal Appeal, bearing Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 727 of 2019, has been preferred by the appellant, Mukesh Pal, against the judgment of conviction, dated 06.06.2019 and the order of sentence, dated 07.06.2019, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2016, arising out of Bhagwanpur Hat P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act . The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) for the offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act . Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case originates from the fardbeyan of Lalan Rai, uncle of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, recorded on 02.04.2015 at about 10:10 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Siwan. According to the informant, at about 07:00 P.M. on the same day, the appellant allegedly called his nephew Sanjeev Kumar and thereafter the informant heard the sound of firing. When he reached the place of occurrence, he claims to have found Sanjeev Kumar lying injured with a gunshot wound on his thigh. The injured was taken towards Siwan for medical treatment but succumbed to the injuries on the way.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Bhagwanpur Hat P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015 was registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act . After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 30.09.2015. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act , to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The defence did not examine any witness. On consideration of evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel representing the State. The record of the case including depositions, exhibits, fardbeyan, FIR, post-mortem report and the impugned judgment has been examined with care.

6. The learned Trial Court assessed the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence and the materials collected during investigation, and concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

7. To reach the conclusion of guilt, the learned Trial Court primarily relied upon the testimonies of P.W.3, the sister of the deceased; P.W.4, the informant and the uncle of the deceased. According to the Trial Court, P.W.3 was a natural witness whose presence near the place of occurrence was consistent with the prosecution story. The Trial Court noted that P.W.3 deposed that the appellant came to their house at around 07.00 P.M. on 02.04.2015, took the deceased with him, and shortly thereafter she heard multiple gunshots from the western direction. She claimed to have reached the place of occurrence and seen the appellant with firearm. Although her statement had been recorded at a later stage during investigation, the Trial Court held that such delay,