- (1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.1.2000 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in S.T. No. 8 of 1991 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and R.I. for 3 years respectively and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in briel, is that the informant was sleeping in his house after taking meal, and the family members were cutting the mango in Ban. In the meantime a firing was done and the informant sustained injury on his right cheek and thereafter Daroga Sao the appellant was seen fleeing away towards his house. The family members also raised bulla saying that Daroga Sao had fired on Briksha Sao. The cause of incidence is that on 19.5.1989 at 12 noon a hot discussion had taken place between the informant and Daroga Sao regarding the share of the mango. Daroga Sao had called co -villagers Mauzi Sao, Arjun Sao and Bigan Sao. After some altercation, the dispute was pacified. The informant further alleged that due to this reason Daroga Sao fired at him by his pistol After investigation, the charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant Daroga Sao under Section 307 I.P.C. and under Section 27, Arms Act. As the appellant pleaded his innocence and further stated he has been implicated in this case due to village politics. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses to prove its case amongst them P.Ws. 2 and 9 have been tendered, P.Ws. 10, 13 and 14 are formal witnesses and P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are relatives of the victim Briksha Sao. The injured Briksha Sao could not be examined by the prosecution as he died during the early stage of the trial. P.W. 6 is Doctor and P.W. 12 is I.O. of this case.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses but none of them was eye witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that according to the informant, a good numbers of neighbours/villagers has come out from their house on the hearing of sound of firing but the prosecution has not examined any such independent witness. Furthermore, the P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 who are sons, daughter and son - in -law of the informant (injured) have given contradictory statements with each others and as such their credibility is highly doubtful.;