12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued in defence of the impugned finding. He has, in particular, relied upon the statement of the informant, who has supported the case of the prosecution, as set up through her fardbeyan and was a natural eye-witness to the occurrence. Despite the fact that other material prosecution witnesses turned hostile during trial, the testimony of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and the daughter, Rita Kumari (P.W.2) who was a vital eye-witness to the occurrence and was sleeping on the same cot as that of the deceased, cannot be simply discarded to upturn the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The fire-arm injury has been proved through the medical evidence of P.W.14 (Dr. R. P. Sinha) who conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the same as Exhibit-8. The motive of the crime has also been adequately proved through the informant in her fardbeyan who supported her assertions in the fardbeyan, during trial and also by the Investigating Officer, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (P.W.9), who at Paragraph-6 in his cross-examination has categorically referred to the Complaint Case bearing No.101 of 1986 stated as the motive by the informant for the accused persons to have indulged in the murder of her husband. The relevant facts in issue relating to the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence, the weapon used in the occurrence, the resultant fire-arm injury caused by the weapon of assault and the death of the victim, Janki Yadav, as a result of that fire-arm injury, all have been cogently proved by the prosecution to bring home the charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt against the sole accused/appellant. Therefore, there is no element of doubt left in the prosecution case which would entitle the appellant to seek his acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The appeal is without merit and fit to be dismissed.
