- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction nd sentence passed on 17th June 2002 by Sri Jagarnath Mishra, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1998/ 43 of 1998, whereby the sole Appellant has been found guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years on that account. However, both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Informant PW-8, wife of Lutfut Sk (deceased) gave statement at about 11.00 P.M., in the night on 20/05/1998 to the effect that at about 7.15 p.m., when she was sitting in her house alongwith her husband, one of the accused Mofizuddin called her husband from outside. Her husband went outside of his house. She followed him. The accused took him to a distance of about 150 yards on road. She stood at some distance from where she saw that all the accused persons including this Appellant and some other persons were standing there. The other accused persons ordered to kill her husband and then this Appellant through a pistol fired at him. Her husband cried for help and then she also cried and ran towards her husband. On the sound of fire Nasiruddin Sk (PW-3) and Abdul Alim (PW-1) and one Shanto came running at the spot and, thereafter, the miscreants fled away. Her husband died at the spot. She further said that her husband has been killed due to dispute between her husband and the accused persons for throwing Moram (red soil) at the side of her husband's house. The other accused persons have been acquitted giving benefit of doubt and the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
(3.) Mr. D.K. Prasad, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence of PW-8, i.e. the informant. He further submitted that no blood stain was found at the place of occurrence, which appears to be wholly unnatural and, therefore, the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence also.;