Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses; the informant is PW-2.

4. The prosecution has projected PW-1 and PW-2 as the eye- witnesses.

5. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that in the night of 15.04.2009 he along with his friends had gone to Parsudih for watching a dance programme. There they had visited a drinking place and were enjoying drinks (Hadia). In the meantime the appellant came there and asked them to leave the place. The informant and his friends have thereafter left the place and gone to the dance programme. After about half an hour they came back to the drinking place again and when they were enjoying their drinks the appellant again came back and started assaulting him. When Sudhir Sinku objected and tried to intervene, the appellant whipped out a pistol and fired at him and thereafter he fled away. At that time the appellant was accompanied by few friends. On their raising hulla and hearing the sound of gunshot several persons came there and Sudhir Sinku was taken to the MGM hospital on an auto rickshaw. In the court, he has narrated a similar story about the incident in the night of 15.04.2009. He has stated that he had gone to see the dance programme and was enjoying drinks at a nearby place. The appellant came there with his friends and started marpit and when Sudhir Sinku tried to intervene the appellant had fired at him. PW-1 who is also an eye-witness has described the incident in a similar manner. He has stated about the appellant visiting the drinking place, a quarrel between him and the appellant and the appellant firing a pistol shot at Sudhir Sinku.

6. PW-1 and PW-2 have remained unshaken during their cross-examination and nothing material could be elicited by the defence from them. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that the drinking place was at a distance of at about 20-25 ft. from the dancing place. He has stated that though 80-90 persons had assembled there after firing and there was a commotion but no one tried to apprehend the appellant because he was holding a pistol. He has affirmed the fardbeyan stating that it was read over to him. He has also stated that while fleeing away the appellant had threatened him not to disclose his name before the police. PW-2 has also stated about threat by the appellant and distance between the dancing place and the drinking place about 50 ft. PW-3 is brother of Sudhir Sinku. At the time of occurrence he was watching the dance programme and on hearing hulla he has reached the place of occurrence. He has found his brother lying on the ground. He has stated that they have taken him to TMH hospital for treatment.