The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence, in particular, the testimony of PW4, the medical evidence, the evidence of ballistic expert and that of seizure came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the gun shot injury which resulted in death of the deceased was inflicted by the appellant.
In respect of father and brother of the appellant, informant PW4 gave in writing that their names had been wrongly mentioned and, therefore, numberaction be taken against them.
Giriraj was given benefit of doubt since neither any injury was attributed to him number was katta recovered and it was held by the Sessions Court that the intention of Giriraj to companymit the murder of the deceased had number been proved.
The shot hit the deceased above the waste on his backbone.
The appellant was accompanied by his brother in law, Giriraj who had a katta, father, who had a gupti and brother who also had a katta.
The State did number challenge the acquittal of Giriraj.
The appellant and Giriraj, his brother in law were put up for trial.
The incident was seen by PW6 and PW5.
The deceased was taken to a hospital but seems to have died on the spot.
