Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ***** Criminal Appeal (DB) No.746 of 2004 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th August, 2004 pased by Shri R.P. Singh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1990. =========================================================== Pramod Mandal, Son of Late Bhusali Mandal, Resident of Companybagh, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Mohan, Advocate. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Nihar Nandan Ambasta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 26-07-2012 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 746 of 2004 filed on behalf of appellant Pramod Mandal has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th of August, 2004 in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1990 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bhagalpur, convicting him under [STATUTE] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. According to the First Information Report, the prosecution case was initiated by Arjun Poddar (P.W.1) on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.746 of 2004 dt.26-07-2012 2/9 27.08.1988 at 01.30 p.m. The informant’s son Narottam Kumar came running to his house and at that time he was being chased by this appellant Pramod Mandal and Shankar Mandal. Initial shot was fired by Shankar Mandal which misfired but Narottam Kumar fell down and, thereafter, fatal shot was given by appellant Pramod Mandal from his pistol from very close range. The fardbeyan containing the signature of Arjun Poddar P.W.1 marked at (Ext.1) and Laxmi Poddar P.W.2 marked at (Ext.1/1). The fardbeyan resulted into formal First Information Report (Ext.5) of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 491 of 1988 dated 27.08.1988 under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the investigation proceeded. In course of investigation the inquest report (not brought on record) was prepared. The dead body was sent for autopsy and the post- mortem report (Ext.4) was prepared. Statement of Arjun Poddar P.W.1 (Ext.3) and Rukmini Devi P.W.2 (Ext.3/1) got recorded before the Judicial Magistrate. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the case being triable by the court of Sessions was committed, where charge against four accused namely Shankar Mandal, Pramod Mandal, Raj Kishore Mandal @ Raju Poddar and Raju Mandal was framed. In course of trial, proceeding against Shankar Mandal and Raju Mandal was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.746 of 2004 dt.26-07-2012 3/9 dropped by order dated 25.03.2000 and 04.07.1995 respectively. Besides the present appellant one Rajkishore Poddar @ Raju Poddar faced trial. The trial court did not find any incriminating evidence against Rajkishore Poddar @ Raju Poddar so he was acquitted and the appellant was convicted under [STATUTE] . 3. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and also that manner of assault has not been separated either medically or orally. 4. The court after consideration of the evidence has held the appellant guilty under [STATUTE] . 5. This Court is required to reappreciate the evidence and see that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined the informant Arjun Poddar as P.W.1, wife of the informant Rukmini Devi as P.W.2, daughter of the informant Kanchan Devi as P.W.3, relative of the informant Laxmi Poddar as P.W.4, Dr. Kailash Jha as P.W.5, brother-in-law of the informant Dasrath Poddar as P.W.6 and Md. Razi formal witness has been examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 is not material witness and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.746 of 2004 dt.26-07-2012 4/9 he has proved the writing and signature of the then officer-in- charge of Kotwali (Ext.5). Therefore, his evidence is of no use to either side. 7. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was held on 28.08.1988 at 12.30 p.m. and the doctor has found the following ante-mortem injuries: (I). Oval firearm wound of entry at right side chest upper margin at right nipple level and 1” medial size 1 ½ x 3/4” chest cavity. Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. The death was due to firearm injury and the time elapsed since death was 18-24 hours. 8. The occurrence is of 01.30 p.m. and the post- mortem was performed at 12.30 p.m. on the next date meaning thereby the death is within 24 hours and it is due to firearm. This has been proved that Narottam Kumar son of Arjun Poddar met a violent death by use of firearm on the date and time as alleged by the prosecution. 9. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased. She has stated that her son has not received firearm injury and she has been declared hostile. P.W.4 sister of the deceased has deposed that on the date of occurrence she was not at her house so she could not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.746 of 2004 dt.26-07-2012 5/9 witness the occurrence. Therefore, she was the second witness to be declared hostile by the prosecution. Laxmi Poddar P.W.4 has expressed total ignorance of the occurrence and has said that after receipt of the information he has rushed to the place of occurrence. He did not support the prosecution case and he was the third witness to be declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.6 has deposed that at the time of occurrence he was in the market and has not witnessed the occurrence. This witness was the fourth witness to be declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, only one witness is requi

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.