The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence, including eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J.

Both the appeals each filed by one appellant have been heard together as they arise out of the same trial.

1. Both the appellants were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for having caused the death of the father of informant (PW-5). The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Ad hoc Court No. III, Madhepura vide the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2011 held them guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC and the order of sentence dated 06.12.2012 directed the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) to each of them. In default of the payment of the fine the appellants were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.

2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the ‘fardbeyan’ (Ext.-2/2) lodged by the son of the deceased, namely Lalan Prasad Yadav (PW-5), in brief, is that on 28.12.2010, at about 5.45 P.M., the informants father was taking tea at the tea shop of Narayan Mandal situated close to the college Chowk in the township of Madhepura. At the same time, Bisho Yadav (PW-1) had tied his cow in front of the shop. Appellant Santosh Kumar @ Kauwa was passing by the side of the tied cow and got smeared with cow dung from the tail of the cow. He became annoyed/irritated and started assaulting the cow. Bisho Yadav protested whereafter appellant Santosh Kumar @ Kauwa started abusing and grappled with him. In the meantime, Muneshwari Yadav (deceased) the father of the informant who was sitting in the tea shop came and tried to intervene. Enraged by this, the appellants Santosh Kumar @ Kauwa, Nandkishore, and co-accuseds Jitendra Mandal and Rajkumar Paswan took out knife and gave knife blows to the deceased. Upon receiving those injuries he became seriously injured and fell on the ground. Seeing the congregation of the local people the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence. The injured was brought to the Sadar hospital, Madhepura and in course of his treatment he died. The ‘Fardbeyan’ of the informant (PW-5) was promptly recorded at the hospital by Sub Inspector Hare Ram Singh. Upon endorsing the recording of the FIR, the Station House Officer (SHO) himself took up the investigation. An inquest report was drawn by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) PW-7 and the body was dispatched for post-mortem. PW.6 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 29.12.2010 at about 11.20 A.M. and submitted the post-mortem report (Exhibit-3). The I.O. visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and finding the accusations true against the present appellants submitted the charge-sheet keeping the investigation open against 02 other named accused. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 15.4.2011. On transfer, the case came on the file of the learned Trial Judge and Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2011 was registered. Charges were formally framed and read over to the accuseds to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution the statement of the accuseds was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which they denied all the allegations and pleaded their innocence. The defence of the accuseds-appellants was complete denial of the allegations and their false implication at the instance of the enemies and rival groups.

3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution, in all, produced 07 (Seven) witnesses, namely, PW-1 Bisho Yadav, PW-2 Rajaram Yadav, PW-3 Ashok Kumar, PW-4 Pawan Kumar Yadav, PW-5 Lalan Prasad Yadav (informant), PW-6 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh and PW-7 Ajay Kumar, the I.O. of the case. Be it noted here that some other witnesses were also cited in the charge-sheet but the prosecution did not examine them on account of their being gained over. Besides the oral evidence, relevant documents were also proved by the prosecution. Ext.1 is the signature of