The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of witnesses must be reliable and trustworthy. The failure to examine material witnesses can prejudice the accused's case.

D.N.Prasad, J.

1. Both these two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as both the appeals arisen out of the same judgment passed by Shri Jeewan Tigga, the then 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in S.T. Case No. 211/1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants for rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as stated that on 21.9.1980 at about 7.30 p.m. accused Daud Minz had come to the house of the deceased Daya Dhan Tirkey and took him for Panchayati in presence of the informants aunt. The aunt of the informant and nephew of the deceased as well as Matiyas Munda went out of the house and when they reached near the paddy field, all the accused persons, who were present there and also armed with lathi, surrounded and assaulted with lathi to the deceased Daya Dhan Tirkey who fell down. The informant and Matiyas Munda claimed to have identified the accused persons in the light of torch and also proceeded to save the deceased Daya Dhan Tirkey but when the accused persons threatened them and chased to assault. Thereafter, the informant fled away and went to the village and informed the villagers about the occurrence. The villagers and the relatives of the deceased assembled at the place of occurrence and the villagers also identified the accused persons when accused Masidas Minz threatened them for dire consequences. It is further claimed that in the morning the Informant and the villagers went to the place of occurrence and found the dead-body of Daya Dhan Tirkey and thereafter the Informant lodged the First Information Report. The motive behind the occurrence alleged that there was some land dispute and at the instance of Ambika Bharti who had imposed a fine of Rs. 75/- in connection with illicit relationship of informant with Parmila, who is the daughter of accused Masidas Minz. Accordingly, FIR was registered against all the accused persons. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and all the accused persons appeared before the Court of Sessions. The charge under Section 302/34, IPC was framed against all the appellants, to which they have denied the allegation.

3. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner, as stated above.

4. The defence case as alleged that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity and they have committed no offence.

5. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence impugned, the appellants preferred the appeals on the ground that the learned Court below has committed error in convicting the appellants without weighing the evidence on record properly as there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the whole prosecution case has been concocted afterthought in order to harass the appellants.

No doubt, the prosecution has to establish the charge against all the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.

6. Altogether, nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. Of whom, PW 2, Peyari Tirkey, PW 3, Phulmani Kujur, PW 6, Devid Arthur Kujur and PW 8, Ushman Azad have tendered by the prosecution and they have said nothing in respect of the prosecution case.

7. PW 1, Pavarent Tirkey is also not the eye-witness of the occurrence and according to her she had proceeded towards the place of occurrence on Hulla but she could not reach to the said place as she was threatened. She further deposed in para 2 that she reached to the place of occurrence in the morning and she came to know in the morning from Santosh and his father about the occurrence. PW 4, Anthan Tirkey claimed in his evidence that Santosh had informed him that his uncle was murdered and thereafter he proceeded towards the place of o