The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 2016 (CIS No. 489 of 2016), arising out of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 39 of 2016, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-each convict for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, the convicts have to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present appeal has been filed by two appellants namely, appellant No. 1 Md. Babar @ Md. Babar Ali and appellant No. 2 Md. Rustam. Learned counsel Mr. Pratik Mishra appearing for the appellants, under instructions, submits that the appellant No. 2 Md. Rustam passed away during the pendency of the present appeal. In fact, he was released on bail by this Court. Therefore, we have considered the present appeal qua appellant No. 1, who is in custody. This appeal stands abated qua appellant No. 2.

3. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as under:-

3.1. The informant, on 02.04.2016 at 07:00-08:00 a.m., along with her son Abdul Kabir went to field for harvesting wheat crop. While they were harvesting, her husband Abdul Jabbar reached at 09:00 a.m. and asked for breakfast. In the meantime, Sagir, Babar, Rustam and Bibi Sakila, armed with farsa, lathi, arrow came and encircled her husband Abdul Jabbar and then Sagir inflicted repeated farsa blow over the head of her husband. Babar had also assaulted with lathi repeatedly and then Rustam, armed with arrow, was provoking them to kill him. On account of assault, her husband sustained several injuries over different parts of the body, as a result of which, he fell down. Subsequently, the accused persons smashed his teeth as well as jaw and Sakina was assisting them. The informant along with her son intervened and they were also assaulted, as a result of which, they also became senseless. The reason behind the occurrence was that the own brother of the deceased namely Kamrul, who happens to be the father of accused Sagir, had executed a sale deed for 17 khatas of land in favour of the husband of the deceased for which all the accused persons were annoyed.

3.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer started the investigation and during the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 548 of 2016 (CIS No. 489 of 2016).

4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Pratik Mishra for the appellant assisted by Mr. Vatsal Vishal and Mr. Udbhav, learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha for the informant and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Pratik Mishra appearing for the appellant submits that, as per the case of the prosecution, the fardbeyan of the informant came to be recorded at 14:30 hours on 02.04.2016 at Emergency Ward of Sadar Hospital, Purnea. The said fardbeyan was recorded by A.S.I. Shree Bhagwan Pandey. However, the said Officer, who has recorded the fardbeyan, has not been examined by the prosecution. The informant is examined as PW-4 by the prosecution and, in her deposition, the informant did not identify her right thumb impression put in the so-called fardbeyan. On the contrary, the informant has stated that her statement was recorded at her hou