IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. All the criminal appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Ms. Rina Sinha and Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, the learned Advocates on behalf of the appellants. The State, in all the appeals, has been represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. The appellants (fifteen in number) have been convicted under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the I.P.C.) videjudgment dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2010 (CIS No. 2898 of 2013) arising out of Manjhagrah P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010. On the same day of conviction, i.e., on 28.03.2017, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-each for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. The default clauses have been made composite, namely, to suffer an additional period of simple imprisonment of six months for not paying the fine. The Trial Court has also directed that 50% of the fine amount would be paid to the informant, who is the wife of the deceased. Additionally, one of the appellants, namely, Lalan Yadav [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 715 of 2017] has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation to the wife of the deceased, who incidentally is none else, but the daughter of the afore-noted appellant.

4. Dayanand Yadav is alleged to have been bludgeoned to death and his dead-body was put on fire with the active assistance of appellant/Lalan Yadav, who is the father-in-law of afore-noted Dayanand Yadav.

5. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the wife of the deceased, namely, Asha Devi (PW-3). She has alleged in her fardbeyan statement recorded by S.I./Ram Kumar Singh (PW-7) that the appellants had entered her house; dragged out her husband and assaulted him to death. The dead-body was lifted by the appellants and thrown on the verandah. Later, her father (appellant/Lalan Yadav) commanded his co-villagers/appellants to burn the dead-body in the fire which was already burning in front of his house. Seeing the occurrence, PW-3 claims to have made her escape to a different village to take shelter in the house of one Parmanand Yadav. After some time, she came to her village home and saw the dead-body of her husband in front of her father’s house. She has been very specific in alleging that in order to screen the offence, the dead-body was attempted to be burnt.

6. On the basis of afore-noted fardbeyan, Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010 dated 13.03.2010 was registered for investigation against all the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C.

7. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon they were tried.

8. The Trial Court, after having examined seven witnesses in all on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

9. The learned Advocates for the appellants have argued that the Trial Court completely went along the deposition of PW-3 as a daughter to a father would never falsely accuse him for having murdered her husband. The deposition of PW-3, it has been argued, ought to have been seen in the correct perspective and it should have been analyzed more deeply for placing implicit reliance on it only on account of the filial relationship between appellant/Lalan Singh and PW-3.

10. Apart from this, it has been urged in defence of the appellants that notwithstanding the tall claims of PW-3 of having witnessed the occurrence, her presence at the P.O., especially at the time of assault, has been rendered doubtful, which fact becomes evident from a bare reading of the deposition of all the witnesses.

11. No independent person has been examined at the Trial, the learned Advocates grieve, an