IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the significance of consistent eyewitness testimonies, supported by medical and forensic evidence, in establishing guilt. The judgment also clarifies that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution's case if no prejudice is suffered by the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, putting to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Motihari (East Champaran), in Sessions Trial No. 464 of 2010/135 of 2015, arising out of Govindganj P.S. case no. 03 of 2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. The son of the deceased Naresh Kumar (PW-8) is the informant of the case on whose fardbeyan recorded by the Sub-inspector of Police near the dead body of the deceased is the basis for the registration of the concerned Govindganj P.S. Case No. 03 of 2010. Briefly narrated, it is the prosecution's case that at 7:30 am on 04.01.2010 when his father (the deceased) was warming himself while sitting near a bonfire, the appellant Sanoj Thakur and one Batkhari Thakur came and inflicted Daab (a heavy sharp cutting weapon) blow on the head of his father causing severe injuries. The informant, at the time of occurrence was also sitting nearby. The informant is thus an eyewitness to the occurrence. Based on the informant’s fardbeyan, the FIR came to be registered at 11:30 am on 04.01.2010. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant and five others. Cognizance was taken based on the chargesheet so submitted by the police. One of the accused persons appears to have died and trial of other persons was separated from that of this appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined 12 witnesses including the second I.O. (PW-10). PW-4 and PW-7 (grandsons of cousin of the deceased), PW-5 (widow), PW-6 and the agnates of the deceased, claimed to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and deposed at the trial in support of the prosecution. PW-1, a neighbour and PW-9, wife of PW-1 also deposed at the trial in support of the prosecution's case. PW-9 claimed to be an eyewitness. The Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination came to be examined as PW-11. The inquest report and seizure list were proved by PW-12, an advocate's clerk. In addition to the oral evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence, including the FSL report (Exhibit-3, 3/1) and the post-mortem report (Exhibit-4) etc.

3. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC by the trial court with reference to the circumstances emerging against him based on the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses. The appellant answered in negative all the questions put to him under Section 313 of the CrPC.

4. The trial court after having evaluated and appreciated the evidence adduced at the trial has recorded finding of conviction by the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as has been noted above and has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life with fine with a default clause.

5. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have perused the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court as well as the lower court records and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the present case the I.O., who had conducted the investigation has not been examine