Conviction upheld based on eyewitness testimony and the credibility of evidence presented in a murder case.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

4 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 21.06.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 25.06.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 307 of 2021 arising out of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- VIII, Bhojpur at Ara, for the offence punishable under Sections

302/34, 396, 397 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other sections are not mentioned.

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Arun Kumar Singh (PW-3) who accompanied the deceased at the time of the occurrence. In his fardbeyan, the informant (PW-3) has stated that on 12.10.2020 at about 8:00 P.M., he along with his nephew was going to Panpura. In the meantime, the appellant and other co-accused persons intercepted the informant near Krishi Farm and snatched his belongings i.e. gold chain, gold ring and cash. On being opposed, the accused person started assaulting the informant and Vijay Nat (the appellant) fired at his nephew due to which he sustained bullet injury and became unconscious. It is further alleged that the informant took his nephew to the clinic of Doctor Vikash Singh from where he was referred to Paras Hospital, Patna and subsequently his nephew died during course of the treatment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the occurrence took place on 12.10.2020 at 8:00 P.M., but the fardbeyan of the informant has been recorded on 14.10.2020 in the hospital. It is submitted that during this period the police had not recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. It is further submitted that the depositions of other prosecution witnesses are in the nature of hearsay evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that PW-3 is a natural witness, he was accompanying the deceased when they were coming on the motorcycle on 12.10.2020 at about 8:00 P.M. PW-3 has categorically stated that the whole occurrence took place in his presence, he has named this appellant as the main assailant who had fired upon the deceased. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, they had come running to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla as it was a season of irrigation of the crops, therefore, they are witnesses to the circumstances which were immediately present at the place of occurrence. The appellant also has a criminal antecedent.

7. Having regard to the entire materials available on the record which we have prima facie gone through for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of the appellant and taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the State, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the evidence of the eye-witness (PW-3) and there being no case of the defense that there is any reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case, the appellant would not deserve suspension of the sentence and privilege of bail.

Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative in nature for purpose of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence and bail of the appellant which would not cause prejudice to either of the parties.

9. List this appeal for hearing on its turn.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)