JUDGMENT 1. As all these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 11 th August 2008 and Order of sentence dated 20.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1 st , Dhanbad, in S.T. No.447 of 2006, whereby, all these appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Though these appellants had also been charged for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act , but they have acquitted of this charge. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the India Penal Code, and R.I for ten years each, for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Manoj Kumar Yadav, who is the brother of the deceased Anil Kumar Yadav, recorded on 19.02.2006 at Central Hospital, Saraidhela, at 6.30 AM in the morning, wherein, the informant has stated that his brother Anil Kumar Yadav was sleeping with his staff Sanjay Sah @ Sanjay Gupta at their grill shop, whereas the other family were sleeping in their house. On 19.02.2006 at about 5.10 A.M., the informant was informed that at about 4.55 A.M., in the morning, four culprits came on motorcycles and they assaulted his brother Anil Kumar Yadav and the staff Sanjay Sah by firearm, who were lying injured at the place of occurrence. Upon getting the information, the informant and his family members went there and saw Anil Kumar Yadav and Sanjay Sah in injured condition. They were brought to the Central Hospital, Saraidhella, but by the time they reached the hospital, Anil Kumar Yadav died. Sanjay Sah was taken to Patliputra Nursing Home, Dhansar, for his treatment. The informant was informed by Sanjay Gupta that while Anil Kumar Yadav and Sanjay Sah were sleeping at the shop, at about 4.55 A.M. in the morning, four persons came on two motorcycles. Sanjay Sah was taken to Patliputra Nursing Home, Dhansar, for his treatment. The informant was informed by Sanjay Gupta that while Anil Kumar Yadav and Sanjay Sah were sleeping at the shop, at about 4.55 A.M. in the morning, four persons came on two motorcycles. Both the motorcycles were kept in the start position by their drivers. One motorcycle was being driven by Fuchu @ Jit Goswami, but Sanjay Sah could not identify the driver of the other motorcycle. Two persons, viz., Ranjit Rawani and Deepak Chauhan, who were armed with revolver, got down from the motorcycles, and Ranjit Rawani shot the firearm upon Anil Kumar Yadav causing injuries to him and when Sanjay Sah raised the alarm, he was also assaulted by firearm by Deepak Chauhan, but the projectile passed touching his head. It is stated in the fardbeyan that on 18.02.2006, in the wee hours at about 3.00 to 3.30 A.M, Fuchu @ Jit Goswami had entered in the house of the informant in suspicious condition. He was seen by the father and mother of the informant, who raised the alarm, whereupon he was apprehended and assaulted by the family members. They were about to hand him over to the police, but the maternal uncle of Jit Goswami came and at his request, he was left by the family members. On 18.02.2006, Jit Goswami was found with another boy, nearby the house and shop of the informant and they were saying that they shall take revenge of the assault. Claiming that the accused persons had committed the murder of his brother Anil Kumar Yadav for the said revenge, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No.129 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No.560 of 2006, was instituted against three named and one unknown accused persons for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code , and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the appellants, as also against one Pradip Kumar Chauhan. 5. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the appellants, as also against one Pradip Kumar Chauhan. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the four accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. It may be stated that after trial, the co-accused Pradip Kumar Chauhan has been acquitted by the Trial Court below, in absence of any evidence against him. 6. The prosecution case is supported by only one eyewitness, who is P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah. He was also injured in the occurrence. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 19.02.2006 at about 5.00 A.M., near the grill shop of Manoj Yadav, where he was also present, as he was working in the said grill shop. He was sleeping in front of the shop, and woke up for urination, when four persons came on two motorcycles. He could identify Ranjeet Rawani, Deepak Chauhan and Fuchu Goswami, but he could not identify the fourth person. Two persons kept the motorcycles on start position and Deepak Chauhan and Ranjit Rawani get down from the motorcycles. Ranjit Rawani pointed the revolver upon Anil and shot the firearm causing injury on the left side of head of Anil. Upon the alarm raised by this witness, Deepak Chauhan also shot the firearm upon him causing injuries on his head in the left side. Upon the alarm raised, the accused persons fled away. The elder brother of Anil was informed and the nearby shopkeepers were also informed. Both the injured were taken to Central Hospital, Saraidhella, where Anil Yadav died. This witness was not treated there, rather he was treated in Popular Nursing Home. He has stated that he had no knowledge as to why the occurrence had taken place. He has indentified the accused persons Ranjit Rawani, Deepak Chauhan and Fuchu in the Court, but he has not identified the other co-accused in the Court. This witness was not treated there, rather he was treated in Popular Nursing Home. He has stated that he had no knowledge as to why the occurrence had taken place. He has indentified the accused persons Ranjit Rawani, Deepak Chauhan and Fuchu in the Court, but he has not identified the other co-accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was an employee of Manoj Yadav and he was getting salary from him. He has also stated that the Popular Nursing Home, where he was treated, is at a distance of about 6 to 7 Kms., from Central Hospital. He has stated that in the previous night, this witness and the deceased had taken meals at about 8.00 P.M. He has also stated that his shirt was blood stained and the bed, on which, Anil was sleeping, was also blood stained, and it was seized by the police. He could not see whether any fired cartridge was recovered by the police from the place of occurrence or not. He has also stated that Anil was assaulted from a distance of about two feet. His attention was also drawn towards his statement given before the police, in which, he has stated that he had given the statement before the police that Ranjit Rawani had pointed the revolver towards Anil and he had also stated that Anil was injured on the left side of his head. He had also given the statement before the police that this witness was also injured on the left side of his head by firearm and he has denied the suggestion that he had stated that the projectile had passed only touching his head. Though this witness had been put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing further of much importance therein. 7. P.W.-2 Manoj Kumar Yadav is the informant in the case and the brother of the deceased. He has supported the case as hearsay witness, stating that Anil Kumar Yadav was his younger brother, who had been murdered by firearm. The occurrence had taken place on 19.02.2006 at about 4.55 A.M. At that time, the deceased was sleeping outside his grill shop with Sanjay Sah. In the morning, he was informed by one Sunil @ Sushil Sao about the occurrence, and when he went there, he saw his brother Anil Yadav and Sanjay Gupta in injured condition. The occurrence had taken place on 19.02.2006 at about 4.55 A.M. At that time, the deceased was sleeping outside his grill shop with Sanjay Sah. In the morning, he was informed by one Sunil @ Sushil Sao about the occurrence, and when he went there, he saw his brother Anil Yadav and Sanjay Gupta in injured condition. They were brought to Central Hospital, but his brother died in the way. He was informed by Sanjay Gupta that Ranjit Rawani had assaulted Anil Kumar Yadav by firearm and Deepak Chauhan had assaulted Sanjay Gupta by firearm. He was informed that the culprits had arrived on two motorcycles, one motorcycle was driven by Fuchu @ Jit Gosowmi, but Sanjay could not identify the driver of the other motorcycle. This witness has also stated that one day prior to the occurrence, Fuchu @ Jit Goswami had entered his house. He was apprehended and assaulted by the family members, including the deceased. He has also stated that at the request of the maternal uncle of Fuchu @ Jit Goswami, he was left by them and no case was instituted, but on 18.02.2006, the accused persons were saying that they would take revenge, and in order to take revenge the accused persons had killed his brother. His fardbeyan was recorded at Central Hospital, and finding the same correct, he had put his signature thereon. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit 1. He has also stated that the inquest report of the dead body was prepared, on which also, he had put his signature. Though this witness was also put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination, as he is only a hearsay witness to the occurrence. 8. P.W.-3 Pramila Devi is the mother of the deceased, and she has also supported the prosecution case as hearsay witness, in more or less the same manner, as stated by P.W.-2 Manoj Kumar Yadav. 9. P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 19.02.2006, and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:- Firearm wound of entrance about " diameter and cavity deep situated on the left side of forehead with abrasion color around the margins of wound, without evidence of burning blackening or tattooing. Salendar Kumar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 19.02.2006, and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:- Firearm wound of entrance about " diameter and cavity deep situated on the left side of forehead with abrasion color around the margins of wound, without evidence of burning blackening or tattooing. On dissection:- The bullet travelled into skull after breaking the frontal bone at the right of injury No.1 and it perforated the brain from left to right and got in lodged in the right parietal bone of skull, from where the bullet was recovered. It was labeled, sealed and handed over the constable for exhibit. Brain and meninges were lacerated. Subdural haematoma and intracerebral haematoma were found all over on both sides. Heart and bladder were empty. Stomach contained about 150 c.c. of pasty food. All internal organs were pale. He has stated that the cause of death was due to aforementioned injuries of brain and skull caused by bullet fired from a distance of more than two feet. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit 2. He has also identified his signatures on dead body chalan and the inquest report, which he had put at the time of receiving the dead body, which were marked Exhibits 3 & 4 respectively. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the food present in the stomach of the deceased showed that it was taken within five to six hours of death. 10. P.W.-5 is Dr. Manjeet Singh Sandhu of Popular Nursing Home, who had examined the injury of Sanjay Sah on 19.02.2006, and had found one laceration over left side of scalp, 1" x " x " caused by blunt instrument, and the same was simple in nature. He has proved the injury report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit 5. 11. P.W.-6 Binod Kumar is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 19.02.2006, he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Dhansar Police Station. In the morning, he got an information by way of rumour that one shopkeeper Anil Kumar Yadav was assaulted by firearm and his employee Sanjay Sah was also injured in the occurrence. He made the sanha entry about the information and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. In the morning, he got an information by way of rumour that one shopkeeper Anil Kumar Yadav was assaulted by firearm and his employee Sanjay Sah was also injured in the occurrence. He made the sanha entry about the information and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. He came to Central hospital, Saraidhela, where he was informed that Anil Kumar Yadav had died. In the hospital campus he recorded the fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar Yadav, the brother of deceased, which this witness has proved and the same was marked Exhibit 1/1. He has also proved the endorsements on the fardbeyan, which were marked Exhibits 1/2 and 1/3. He took over the charge of investigation. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit 3/1. The dead body chalan was also proved by this witness, which was marked Exhibit 4/1. He has proved the formal FIR, which was marked Exhibit 6. He has stated that he inspected the place of occurrence, which is the grill shop of the informant. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, where he had found the blood stains on the bed also. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He prepared the seizure list of the slippers of the deceased, which was marked Exhibit 7 and he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the injury of Sanjay Sah was treated at Popular Nursing Home. He had seen the post-mortem report, but he had not received it. He was also informed about the occurrence of 18.02.2006, when Fuchu @ Jit Goswami had entered the house of the informant at about 3.00 A.M., where he was assaulted. He has stated that he had not seized the blood stained bed or soil from the place of occurrence and he had not recorded the statements of nearby shopkeepers. He had not sent the cloths of the deceased for forensic examination. Some contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah were taken, in which, he has stated that Sanjay Sah had not stated before him that at the time of occurrence, Ranjit Rawani had pointed the pistol towards Anil and he had not stated that Anil was injured on the left side of his head. Some contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah were taken, in which, he has stated that Sanjay Sah had not stated before him that at the time of occurrence, Ranjit Rawani had pointed the pistol towards Anil and he had not stated that Anil was injured on the left side of his head. This witness has also not stated before him that he was also injured on the left side of his head, rather he has stated that the projectile had passed only touching his head. This witness has stated that Sanjay Sah had fully supported the prosecution case. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 12. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. The defence has also examined one witness D.W.-1 Sushil Kumar Sao, who has only come to depose that there is no grill shop of the informant at the place of occurrence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offences as aforesaid, whereas one accused Pradip Kumar Chauhan has been acquitted by the Trial Court below, in absence of any evidence against him. 13. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, admittedly there is only one eyewitness P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah, but he has not been made the informant in the case, rather one hearsay witness has been made informant in the case. It is also submitted by learned counsels that P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah, who is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence, is not a reliable witness, in as much as, he has stated that he was assaulted by firearm, but the Doctor P.W.-5 Manjeet Singh Sandhu, who had examined his injury did not find any firearm injury on him, rather only a simple lacerated wound caused by blunt instrument was found on him. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah is a highly interested witness, being an employee of the informant, and as such, the conviction of the accused persons could not be based only on the ocular evidence of this sole eyewitness. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah is a highly interested witness, being an employee of the informant, and as such, the conviction of the accused persons could not be based only on the ocular evidence of this sole eyewitness. Learned counsels further pointed out that though P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah has stated that the assault on the deceased was made from a distance of about two feet, but there were no burning, blackening or tattooing mark on the wound of entrance, which would show that the firearm was fired from a greater distance, which fact is also supported by P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar, who has stated that the bullet was fired from a distance of more than two feet. P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah had also stated that in the previous night, this witness and the deceased had taken meals at about 8.00 P.M., but P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar has stated that the food present in the stomach of the deceased showed that it was taken within five to six hours of death. Learned counsels also submitted that P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah has made material improvements in his evidence, and necessary contradictions have been taken from the I.O., and as such he is not a trustworthy witness, and all the other witnesses are only hearsay witnesses. Learned counsels also submitted that even though, it is stated in the FIR that the father of the deceased was also present, but he has not been examined by the prosecution, for the reasons best known by the prosecution. Learned counsels further submitted that no firearm or fired cartridge were seized in the case and no blood stained soil or cloths were seized by police. Submitting that the investigation in the case is only perfunctory investigation, learned counsels submitted that the prosecution has not been able to bring home charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and in the facts of this case, the accused appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 14. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah as eyewitness to the occurrence. This witness has stated that four culprits came on two motorcycles. One motorcycle was being driven by accused Fuchu, where as Deepak Kumar Chauhan and Ranjit Rawani got down from the motorcycles. This witness has stated that four culprits came on two motorcycles. One motorcycle was being driven by accused Fuchu, where as Deepak Kumar Chauhan and Ranjit Rawani got down from the motorcycles. Ranjit Rawani assaulted Anil Kumar Yadav by firearm, which proved fatal to him, whereas Deepak Kumar Chauhan had assaulted this witness by firearm causing injury on his head. Learned counsel submitted that the motive behind the occurrence has also been proved by the prosecution, as P.W.-2 Manoj Kumar Yadav and P.W.-3 Pramila Devi have stated that prior to the occurrence, the accused Fuchu @ Jit Goswami had entered the house of the accused in the wee hours of about 3.00 to 3.30 A.M., in suspicious condition, when he was assaulted by the family members, including the deceased, and he was saying that he would take revenge of his assault. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of the sole eyewitness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit 2, as also P.W.-5 Dr. Manjeet Singh Sandhu, and the injury report of Sanjay Sah, proved by him as Exhibit 5. Learned counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah as eyewitness to the occurrence. He has given the vivid details of the occurrence, stating that in the morning, at about 4.55 A.M., when the deceased was sleeping in front of his shop, four persons came on two motorcycles. One motorcycle was being driven by the accused Fuchu. Ranjit Rawani and Deepak Kumar Chauhan got down from the motorcycles. Ranjit Rawani assaulted the deceased by firearm and upon the alarm raised by this witness, Deepak Kumar Chauhan also assaulted him by firearm causing injury on his head and thereafter the accused persons fled away. This witness could not give the motive behind the occurrence, and rightly so, as he is only the employee of the informant, working in the shop. This witness could not give the motive behind the occurrence, and rightly so, as he is only the employee of the informant, working in the shop. The motive behind the occurrence has been fully proved by P.W.-2 Manoj Kumar Yadav and P.W.-3 Pramila Devi, the brother and mother of the deceased, who have supported the prosecution case as hearsay witnesses, and they have stated that one day prior to the occurrence, in the wee hours at about 3.00 to 3.30 A.M., the accused Fuchu @ Jit Goswami had entered their house in suspicious condition. He was apprehended and also assaulted and he was saying that he would take the revenge of that assault. Both these witnesses were informed about the occurrence of murder by P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah, whose ocular evidence is fully corroborated by P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar, and post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit 2, which clearly show that the deceased had suffered the firearm injury on the left side of his forehead perforating the brain from left to right, and the bullet was found lodged in the right parietal bone of skull, and the deceased had died due to the said injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death. The evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Manjeet Singh Sandhu also shows that there was one lacerated wound on the left side of the head of P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah, which is said to be caused by blunt instrument. The fact remains that such injury could be caused even by bullet. The submission of the learned counsels for the appellants that the evidence of P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that he had stated that the deceased was injured by firearm from a distance of about two feet, but there were no burning or tattooing marks on the wound of entrance, is of no help to the defence, in view of the fact that it is not at all expected that the exact distance shall be given by the witness. We do not find any material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah, as there is no contradiction in his evidence, so far the allegation of assaults made by both the accused, i.e., Ranjit Rawani and Deepak Kumar Chauhan is concerned. We do not find any material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah, as there is no contradiction in his evidence, so far the allegation of assaults made by both the accused, i.e., Ranjit Rawani and Deepak Kumar Chauhan is concerned. We also find that the evidence of the sole eyewitness P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah cannot be doubted for the reason that he had stated that in the previous night, this witness and the deceased had taken meals at about 8.00 P.M., but P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar has stated that the food present in the stomach of the deceased showed that it was taken within five to six hours of death. The evidence of D.W.-1 Sushil Kumar Sao that there was no grill shop of the informant at the place of occurrence is of no help to the defence, in view of the fact that the I.O. P.W.-6 Binod Kumar has detailed the place of occurrence, which is the grill shop of the informant, where the blood stains were also found by him. The I.O., has also stated that Sanjay Sah had fully supported the prosecution case. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the evidence of the sole eyewitness P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar Sah cannot be doubted simply because of the fact that he is an employee of the informant, and it cannot be presumed that he is an interested witness. We find his evidence to be fully trustworthy, which is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-4 Dr. Salendar Kumar and P.W.-5 Dr. Manjeet Singh Sandhu. On the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the facts that in furtherance of their common intention, these appellants have committed the murder of the deceased Anil Kumar Yadav, and assaulted and injured Sanjay Kumar Sah with the intention to cause his death. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order sentence passed by the Trial Court below, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences as aforesaid, worth any interference by this Court. 16. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order sentence passed by the Trial Court below, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences as aforesaid, worth any interference by this Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 11 th August 2008 and Order of sentence dated 20.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1 st , Dhanbad, in S.T. No.447 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellants Ranjit Rawani, Deepak Kumar Chauhan and Fuchu @ Jit Goswami, for the offences under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant Ranjit Rawani is already in custody undergoing the sentence. The appellants Fuchu @ Jit Goswami and Deepak Kumar Chauhan are on bail. Their bails are hereby, canceled, and they are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith for serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue the process forthwith, compelling the production/surrender of the appellants Fuchu @ Jit Goswami and Deepak Kumar Chauhan for serving out the sentence. 17. We do not find any merit in all these three appeals and the same are accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.