JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-11-2017 (sentence passed on 07-12-2017) passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 255 /2010 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27(1) Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. The appellant has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27(1) Arms Act and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sachit Sahi recorded on 30-09-2008 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 5:45PM, he was standing outside his house and his brother Manchit Sahi was coming home from the western side. As soon as the brother of the informant reached near his house, he was surrounded by Pratap Sahi (appellant), Ajay Singh, Avinash Singh, Mohan Singh and 4 unknown persons. Pratap Sahi asked the brother of the informant about the whereabouts of his father and on refusal, Pratap Sahi had taken out a pistol from his waist and fired at the brother of the informant and when his brother tried to flee away, he was stripped by Achal Singh as a result of which he fell down. The two persons accompanying Pratap Sahi had also fired at the brother of the informant when he fell down and Pratap Sahi had once again fired at him. The accused persons thereafter fled away. The brother of the informant was taken to Referral Hospital, Mandar where doctors declared him dead. The reason for the occurrence is the demand of share by Pratap Sahi of a piece of land which was purchased by the father of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mandar P.S. Case No. 88/2008 was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. The reason for the occurrence is the demand of share by Pratap Sahi of a piece of land which was purchased by the father of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mandar P.S. Case No. 88/2008 was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 255/2010. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC and section 27 Arms Act which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Dev Sagar Sahi is the father of the deceased Manchit Sahi who has stated that on 30-09-2008 at 5:30PM, Manchit Sahi was coming when he was surrounded by Pratap Sahi, Avinash Singh and Ajay Singh along with four unknown persons. Pratap Sahi had fired at his son and when he tried to flee, he was tripped by Ajay Singh after which Pratap Sahi shot at his temple and the accused persons fled away. Manchit Sahi was taken to Referral Hospital, Mandar where he was declared dead. Pratap Sahi used to demand a share in his self-acquired property for which he used to give threats. Since he did not give a share to Pratap Sahi, the incident had occurred. He has proved his signature as well as the signature of Sachit Sahi on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 1 and 1/1 respectively. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the murder had taken place at a distance of 20 meters from his house. Several villagers had seen the incident. He had seen the firing from a distance of 20 yards. Achal Singh and Avinash Singh did not have any firearms with them. The shot fired by Pratap Sahi had struck the temple of the deceased. In spite of his son calling for help, he had not rushed to the said place for assistance. After the first shot was fired, about 50 persons had arrived. None of the said persons either tried to save his son nor they had followed the accused persons. The shot fired by Pratap Sahi had struck the temple of the deceased. In spite of his son calling for help, he had not rushed to the said place for assistance. After the first shot was fired, about 50 persons had arrived. None of the said persons either tried to save his son nor they had followed the accused persons. P.W.2 Sevri Devi has stated that she was in her house when Savitri had called her and when she came out on the road, she had found her son being surrounded by 7 persons out of which she had identified Pratap, Achal and Avinash. Pratap Sahi had fired at the palm, chest and temple of her son Manchit Sahi. In cross-examination, she has deposed that when she was called by Savitri, she was inside her house alone. P.W.3 Shubh Kumar Sahi has stated that he was in his house having tea when he heard a commotion and when he came out, he saw his brother Manchit Kumar Sahi being surrounded by 7 persons. Pratap Sahi had fired at Manchit as a result of which he fell down and when he tried to flee, he was tripped by Ajay Singh and thereafter, Pratap Sahi had fired at his temple due to which his brother died. The accused persons thereafter fled away. In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he came out, there was a gathering of 10 persons. The mother of Manchit was crying by taking Manchit on her lap. When his mother got up, Manchit was lying on the ground. Manchit was once again shot at his temple and he had seen such incident. He has deposed that Pratap Sahi is his uncle. There was no land dispute with Pratap Sahi. P.W.4 Savitri Devi is the stepmother of Manchit Sahi who has stated that on 30-09-2008 at 5:30PM, she was standing near the door when she saw Pratap Sahi, Avinash Singh, Ajay Singh and 4 unknown persons assaulting Manchit Sahi at which, she raised an alarm at which the mother of Manchit, Sachit and her husband arrived. Pratap Sahi had shot at Manchit which hit his left shoulder and when Manchit Sahi tried to flee, he was tripped by Ajay Singh after which three accused persons fired at him and finally Pratap Sahi had once again fired at the temple of Manchit. Pratap Sahi had shot at Manchit which hit his left shoulder and when Manchit Sahi tried to flee, he was tripped by Ajay Singh after which three accused persons fired at him and finally Pratap Sahi had once again fired at the temple of Manchit. Manchit Sahi was taken to Referral Hospital, Mandar and he died on the same day. In cross-examination, she has deposed that 40-50 persons had seen the firing made upon Manchit Sahi. Pratap Sahi had twice fired upon Manchit Sahi while the others had fired three shots. Her saree and hands were drenched in blood. Her blood- stained saree was seized by the Police. There is a land dispute going on between her family and Pratap Sahi. P.W.5 Sitaram Singh has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. P.W.6 Raghunath Singh has stated that while returning home after purchasing medicines for his animals, he had heard a commotion and had seen the mother of Manchit lying by taking Manchit on her lap and she was saying that Pratap Sahi has shot at her son. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen any other person except Manchit and his mother. He had remained for five minutes and he had left thereafter. P.W.7 Aditya Kumar Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.8 Sachit Sahi is the informant and brother of the deceased who has stated that on 30-09-2008 at 5:30-6:00PM, he was in his house. His brother Manchit Sahi was coming home and as soon as he reached 10-12 feet from his house, Pratap Sahi, Achal Singh, Avinash Singh and four other unknown persons surrounded him and when asked about his father by Pratap Sahi, his brother had refused to answer him at which Pratap Sahi fired on the chest of his brother and when his brother tried to flee away, he was tripped by Achal Singh after which Pratap Sahi had fired at the temple of his brother. A third firing was made which hit the palm of his brother. The unknown persons had also fired. The incident was witnessed by Shubh Kumar Sahi, Dev Sagar Sahi, Raghunath Singh, Sevari Devi and Savitri Devi. After firing, the accused persons had fled away on motorcycles. A third firing was made which hit the palm of his brother. The unknown persons had also fired. The incident was witnessed by Shubh Kumar Sahi, Dev Sagar Sahi, Raghunath Singh, Sevari Devi and Savitri Devi. After firing, the accused persons had fled away on motorcycles. He does not know the reason for committing the murder of his brother by Pratap Sahi. He has identified his signature in the photocopy of fardbeyan which has been marked as “X” and the signature of Dev Sagar Sahi as “X/1”. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-3/2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Pratap Sahi had made three firings but there is no mention of a third firing either in the fardbeyan or in his restatement. He had seen the incident from a distance of 30-40 feet. When his mother started shouting, Raghunath Singh had come to the place of occurrence. There is no house adjacent to his house. Pratap Sahi and his father are step brothers. It is true that before the arrival of his younger brother Shubh Kumar Sahi, the incident had already taken place. About 30-40 persons had seen the occurrence, but nobody had come forward for assistance of his brother. He had put his brother on a tempo and had taken him to the hospital. P.W.9 Dr. Hridayesh Kumar Sinha was the Assistant Director, SFSL, Ranchi and on 24-02-2009, he had received a sealed cardboard enclosed within a cloth. The packet marked “A” contained some earth mixed with grass. He has proved the report with respect to blood detected in “A” which has been marked as Exhibit-4 and the serological report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar was posted as a Junior Sub-inspector of Police in Mandar P.S. and on 30-09-2008, an information was received that a person has been injured. At this information, after making a station diary entry, he had reached Referral Hospital, Mandar where he came to know that the injured Manchit Sahi has died. Sachit Sahi had given his fardbeyan and a photocopy of the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. The endorsement on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. The formal FIR has been proved as Exhibit-7. Sachit Sahi had given his fardbeyan and a photocopy of the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. The endorsement on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. The formal FIR has been proved as Exhibit-7. After taking over investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant as well as the statement of some of the witnesses. He had prepared the inquest report and had seized a blood-stained earth and the photocopy of the seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. He had recorded the statements of Shiv Kumar Sahi, Tetri Devi, Savitri Devi and Raghunath Singh. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Gurguryari on a road going from east to west. Blood was found at the place of occurrence and two bullets as well as an empty cartridge were also recovered. He has proved the carbon copy of the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-9. He had also recorded the statements of Dev Sagar Sahi, Aditya Singh and Moti Singh. He had obtained the post- mortem report and had sent the blood-stained earth to FSL. He had submitted charge sheet against Ajay Singh and kept the investigation pending against the rest accused persons. On his transfer, he had handed over the investigation to Sub-Inspector Kishun Das. In cross-examination, he has deposed that there were no independent eyewitnesses. The weapons used in the murder were not recovered. The informant in his restatement had not stated about Pratap Sahi firing three times. There were four firearm wounds on the body of the deceased. P.W.11 Dr. Tulsi Mahto was posted as Head of Department of FMT, RIMS Ranchi and on 01-10-2008, Dr. Binay Kumar had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Manchit Sahi and had found the following: Fire arm injuries: 1. Wound of entrance 1.5cm in diameter with abraded collar and inverted margin on left side of chest front situated 5 cm left to midline at 5 th rib level and was surrounded by tattooing in 7 cm x 5 cm area. The projectile passed through the left 5th intercostal space perforated the pericardium at apex of the heart, diaphragm, stomach, intestine and made an exit wound of 2 cm x 1 cm size on left lateral chest in 11 th intercostal space. The track of the wound was contused and lacerated. 2. The projectile passed through the left 5th intercostal space perforated the pericardium at apex of the heart, diaphragm, stomach, intestine and made an exit wound of 2 cm x 1 cm size on left lateral chest in 11 th intercostal space. The track of the wound was contused and lacerated. 2. Wound of entrance 1 cm in diameter with abraded in inverted margin on postero-lateral aspect of right forearm middle part and surrounded by tattooing in 7 cm x 6 cm area. The projectile passed through left forearm and made an exit wound of 1cm x 1cm size on right forearm lower part antero lateral side. The track of wound was contused and lacerated. 3. Wound of entrance 1 cm in diameter with abraded and inverted margin on right thumb back at the base. The projectile passed through left thumb and made an exit wound ‰ cm in diameter on right thumb lateral side at the base. The track of the wound was contused and lacerated. 4. Wound of entrance 1 cm in diameter in right temporal scalp posterior part. The projectile passed through right temporal bone brain matter and then broke the right side of frontal bone and made an exit wound of 2 cm x 1 cm size on right forehead. The track of the wound was contused and lacerated. Internally: The chest, pericardial, abdominal and cranial cavities were filled with blood and blood clot. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by firearms. The cause of death has been opined to be due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of the above noted firearm injuries. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-10. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the commission of the murder. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant that there are major contradictions regarding the presence of witnesses at the time of occurrence as well as the manner of occurrence. The medical evidence does not correlate to the ocular evidence. The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 is doubtful when the evidence of P.W.10 (I.O.) is considered. The Investigating Officer who had taken charge of the investigation from P.W.10 has not been examined by the prosecution which has caused prejudice to the defence. The medical evidence does not correlate to the ocular evidence. The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 is doubtful when the evidence of P.W.10 (I.O.) is considered. The Investigating Officer who had taken charge of the investigation from P.W.10 has not been examined by the prosecution which has caused prejudice to the defence. It has been submitted that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and even the doctor conducting the post-mortem has not been examined. While referring to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, Mr. Kashyap has submitted that all these witnesses have given different version with respect to the firing made by the appellant upon the deceased and this would suggest that due to previous enmity, the appellant has been falsely implicated. 7. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. has submitted that there are several eyewitnesses to the occurrence and merely because they are the family members of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded as their evidence are reliable and trustworthy. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also have perused the trial court records. 9. The fardbeyan reveals about the manner in which Manchit Sahi was surrounded by the accused persons and was shot at from close range resulting in his death. The appellant, as per the fardbeyan, had essayed a predominant role in taking part in the murder. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 are the family members of the deceased and all claim themselves to be the eyewitnesses. However, as per the evidence of P.W.8 (informant), P.W.3 had arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident had already taken place. Except P.W.3, the other witnesses have stood firm in their cross-examination and even though certain contradictions does appear in the manner in which the appellant had participated in the firing but what eventually comes to the notice is the consistency with which the eyewitnesses have stated about the role played by the appellant. Even if we assume that the third firing done by the appellant is doubtful but what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the appellant had fired at the deceased twice and both the bullets had struck the deceased. Even if we assume that the third firing done by the appellant is doubtful but what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the appellant had fired at the deceased twice and both the bullets had struck the deceased. Though several persons had assembled at the time of the occurrence as per the evidence of the witnesses, but none have come forward to depose which is common nowadays as no one wants to expose themselves to the vulnerability of threats and/or bodily injury. Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel has submitted that non-examination of the subsequent Investigating Officer has prejudiced the defence, but he has failed to highlight as to in what manner such prejudice has been caused. When we peruse the post-mortem report, it becomes clear that the same is corroborative with the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses and several firearm injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The evidence produced by the prosecution is cogent, reliable and trustworthy and it is proved beyond doubt that it was the appellant who was instrumental in committing the murder of Manchit Sahi. 10. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, do not find any reasons to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-11-2017 (sentence passed on 07-12-2017) passed by Sri. Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No. 255/2010 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 11. Since the appellant is on bail, he is directed to surrender immediately and forthwith before the learned trial court. 12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.