JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A. K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2010 passed by Sri R. S. Shukla, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-V, Godda in connection with S.C. No. 100/2008, arising out of Boarijore P.S. Case No. 30/2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 332 of 2005, holding the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months, the learned court below further sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act, both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) dated 31/03/2005, alleging therein that on the night of 30-31/03/2005, at about 01:00 A.M, he alongwith his brother Upendra Mandal and one Rajendra Mandal had gone to Karmatanr to pick Mahua fruits near the field of Samu Marandi, where the appellant Shankar Mandal @ Shakru Mandal, Rajendra Mandal and Katiya Mandal accosted them. Shankar Mandal @ Shakru Mandal fired at his brother Upendra Mandal from a point-blank range on which his brother fell in the field of Samu Marandi. Thereafter, Rajendra Mandal inflicted 2-3 knife blows on his chest. Katiya Mandal gave a knife blow on his cheek. Upendra Mandal died at the place of occurrence. 4. After investigation police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused persons under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. Cognizance of the case was taken under the aforesaid sections on 18.11.2005 by learned C.J.M., Godda. This case was committed to the court of Sessions on 23.04.2008, as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. Charge was framed against the appellant on 04.06.2008. The same was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. This case was committed to the court of Sessions on 23.04.2008, as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. Charge was framed against the appellant on 04.06.2008. The same was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. defence is general denial of occurrence and false implication. 9. On the basis of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 10. Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned lawyer appearing for the appellant has submitted that ocular account of the informant, namely, Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) is contradicted by the medical evidence. It was further submitted that the very presence of Sardi Mandal at the place of occurrence is doubtful, and as such his testimony cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant be set aside. 11. Sri A. K. Tiwary, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) has vividly described the occurrence. He has further submitted that there may be minor contradictions in his statement but he has been consistent on the point of date, time, place and manner of occurrence. It was submitted that informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) has stood the test of cross-examination and there is no incongruity in his statement of such a nature that his evidence should be discarded. Accordingly, it was submitted that the learned court below has rightly held the appellant guilty and the impugned judgment does not require any interference. 12. Now it has to be determined whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt? For determination of the aforesaid question, following points emerge for consideration:- (i) whether the deceased Upendra Mandal died a homicidal death? (ii) Whether there is contradiction in the ocular account of the informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) and the medical evidence? (iii) Whether testimony of Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) can be relied upon? FINDINGS The prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses and has adduced five documents in evidence as exhibits. (ii) Whether there is contradiction in the ocular account of the informant Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) and the medical evidence? (iii) Whether testimony of Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) can be relied upon? FINDINGS The prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses and has adduced five documents in evidence as exhibits. Rajendra Mandal @ Jido Mandal (P.W.1) is said to have accompanied the informant and the deceased at the place of occurrence. He has denied having any knowledge about the occurrence, as such he has been declared hostile. Katiya Mandal (P.W. 2) and Debraj Mandal (P.W. 3) have also been declared hostile. Bhukhali Devi (P.W. 4) is mother of the informant. She is a hearsay witness, she has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 01:00 A.M. both her sons and Rajendra Mandal had gone to pick Mahua, thereafter, the informant Sardi Mandal returned home crying and told her that Upendra Mandal has been murdered by Shankar Mandal, Katiya Mandal and Rajendra Mandal. She had identified the appellant in the dock. In her cross-examination she has stated that the informant had told her about the occurrence in the morning. 13. Sardi Mandal (P.W. 5) is the informant and the eye witness of this case. He has supported the occurrence. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which is (Exhibit-1). Dr. Satyendra Mishra (P.W.6) has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Upendra Mandal he has proved the post-mortem report which is (Exhibit-2). Chandra Mani Bharti (P.W. 7) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which is Exhibit-3, he has proved the carbon copy of inquest report and signatures of witnesses on the inquest report which are Exhibit-4 series. He has further proved the seizure list with regard to the seizure of fired cartridge case and blood stained mud seized at the place of occurrence which is Exhibit- 5. He has also proved place of occurrence. 14. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Upendra Mandal died a homicidal death. From the perusal of the inquest report which is Exhibit-4, it appears that the Investigating Officer had found a firearm injury on the chest of the deceased Upendra Mandal. He had also found incised wound on his neck, on the left side of his chest and cheek. Cause of death has been stated to be due to firearm injury and knife injuries. Dr. He had also found incised wound on his neck, on the left side of his chest and cheek. Cause of death has been stated to be due to firearm injury and knife injuries. Dr. Satyendra Mishra (P.W.6) has stated that on 31.03.2005 at about 02:50 P.M he performed the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Upendra Mandal and found following injuries on the person of the deceased. (i) A lacerated wound 1½” X 1” on the left infraclavicular region with blackening of skin margin, which was wound of entry. (ii) A lacerated wound 3” X 2” on the left anterior chest wall below and medial to the left nipple with blackening of skin margin which was wound of exit. (iii) An incised wound 4” X 2” X 2” on the left cheek. According to this witnesses, injury Nos. 1 and 2 are interconnected and caused by a firearm while injury number 3 was caused by a sharp cutting weapon. He has stated that the deceased died due to above-mentioned chest injuries, caused by firearm. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. From perusal of post-mortem report (Exhibit-2) it appears that the findings of the post-mortem fully corroborates the ocular account of Dr. Satyendra Mishra (P.W. 6) From the aforesaid ocular and medical evidence adduced by the prosecution it is apparent that the deceased died due to firearm injury and as such we come to a finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 15. As far as culpability of the appellant is concerned, defence has assailed the oral testimony of Sardi Mandal (P.W.5) on the ground that his account of the manner of occurrence is not corroborated by the injuries found on the person on the deceased. It was submitted that his very presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2005, the informant had gone to pick Mahua fruits near the field of Samu Marandi alongwith his brother Upendra Mandal and Rajendra @ Jido Mandal (P.W.1). It is further case of the prosecution that while they were picking Mahua, appellant and co-accused persons intercepted them and appellant shot him from a very close range, while co-accused persons inflicted knife injuries on the deceased due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Rajendra @ Jido Mandal P.W.1 has turned hostile. It is further case of the prosecution that while they were picking Mahua, appellant and co-accused persons intercepted them and appellant shot him from a very close range, while co-accused persons inflicted knife injuries on the deceased due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Rajendra @ Jido Mandal P.W.1 has turned hostile. So the informant Sardi Mandal P.W.5 remains the sole eye witness of this case. His testimony has to be scrutinized with great care and caution. It has to be seen whether his ocular account is corroborated by material particulars of this case. Bhukhali Devi P.W.4 has stated that the occurrence took place four years ago, at about 01:00 A.M . Her statement was recorded on 26.03.2009. This more or less corroborates the date and time of occurrence. She has further stated that both her sons Sardi Mandal and Upendra Mandal alongwith Rajendra Mandal had gone to pick mahua at 01:00 A.M. Sardi Mandal P.W.5 has stated on 31.03.2005 between 01:00 to 02:00 A.M. He alongwith his brother had gone to Karmatanr to pick mahua when the appellant and co-accused accosted them and appellant shot his brother Upendra Mandal, while co-accused person inflicted knife injuries on the deceased. Chandra Mani Bharti P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer of this case he has stated at paragraph 09 of his deposition that he has visited the place of occurrence. He has given a vivid description of place of occurrence, which is about 03 feet from the field of Samu Marandi. He has further stated that a mahua tree stands at a distance of 20 feet from the field of Samu Marandi. At a distance of 10 feet a basket containing mahua was lying with some mahua scattered around it. He has also recovered a fired cartridge case of .303 bore from there. From the aforesaid oral testimony of these witnesses it is apparent that Bhukli Devi P.W.4 has corroborated the statement of Sardi Mandal P.W.5 that the informant alongwith his brother Upendra Mandal and Jido Mandal had gone to pick Mahua fruits on the alleged date and time of occurrence. This fact is further corroborated by statement of Chandra Mani Bharti P.W.7, who had found a mahua tree at the place of occurrence alongwith a basket containing mahua fruits with some mahua fruits scattered around it. This fact is further corroborated by statement of Chandra Mani Bharti P.W.7, who had found a mahua tree at the place of occurrence alongwith a basket containing mahua fruits with some mahua fruits scattered around it. So the fact that the informant and deceased had gone to pick mahua at the place of occurrence is corroborated by the statement of Bhukhali Devi P.W.4, Chandra Mani Bharti P.W.7 and material particulars of this case. 16. On the point of manner of occurrence Sardi Mandal P.W.5 has stated that the appellant Shankar Mandal @ Shakru Mandal had shot his brother Upendra Mandal from a very close range. While co-accused persons inflicted knife injuries on Upendra Mandal. From the evidence of Dr. Satyendra Mandal P.W.6 and from the perusal of post-mortem report (exhibit 5) It appears that no tattooing and singeing was found around the firearm injuries sustained by the deceased. As per the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, tattooing and singeing ought to have been present on the person of the deceased as he was shot from a very close range. Reliance has been placed upon page no. 646 of Modi's “A textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 26th Edition” edited by Justice K. Kannan, wherein it has been commented that “when there is a close shot that is in the range of powder blast and the flame is within 1 to 3 inches, for small arms there is a collar of soot and grease (if present on the bullet) around the circular wound of entry. Singed hairs may be seen if the body is not covered with clothing. Partially burnt and unburnt grains of powder are blasted into the skin causing a tattooing which cannot be easily wiped off”. From the aforesaid comments it can be envisaged that when injury is caused on that area of human body which is covered with clothing, then singeing of hairs and tattooing will be absent. From the perusal of inquest report (Exhibit-4) at column 7, it is evident that the deceased was wearing a sleeveless vest and a brown tericotton trouser. It is evident that the deceased was fully clothed when shot. So the absence of singeing and tattooing is self explanatory. There is no material contradiction in the statement of Sardi Mandal P.W.5 on the manner of occurrence and the medical evidence. Statement of Dr. It is evident that the deceased was fully clothed when shot. So the absence of singeing and tattooing is self explanatory. There is no material contradiction in the statement of Sardi Mandal P.W.5 on the manner of occurrence and the medical evidence. Statement of Dr. Satyendra Mishra (P.W.6) and the findings in the post-mortem report (Exhibit- 2) shows that there was blackening around the wound of entry and exit which shows that the deceased Upendra Mandal was shot from a very close range. 17. Accordingly the contention of the defence challenging the presence of the informant Sardi Mandal P.W.5 at the place of occurrence is untenable. The informant Sardi Mandal P.W.5 has also withstood the test of cross-examination. His ocular account on the point of manner of occurrence has been corroborated by medical evidence and other material particulars of this case. There is no incongruity in his statement of such nature that it can be discarded. Accordingly we come to a finding that testimony of P.W.5 can be safely relied upon. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned court below has rightly held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. Sentence passed by the learned court below does not require any interference. 19. This appeal is dismissed.