The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

Heard Mr. Pratik Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 30.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Katihar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2016 arising out of Pranpur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2015 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to convict the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict has to undergo further sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Prosecution Story

3. The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by one Pyare Lal Singh (PW-2) who is the son of the deceased. In his written report (Exhibit ‘5’), the informant (PW-2) has stated that on 27.10.2015 at about 1:15 PM his father Chhutharu Singh had gone to the tea shop of Vijay Singh (the appellant) situated at the bank of bridge in Amdosh, he had gone to take tea, while his father was taking tea, the appellant started hurling abuses on him and when the father of PW-2 objected to the said conduct of the appellant, the appellant assaulted his father Chhutharu Singh by a dagger. The appellant allegedly inflicted repeated dagger blow into the abdomen of the father of PW-2 as a result whereof he became badly injured, fell down and died. According to the informant (PW-2), when the appellant saw the people coming from the neighbourhood, he fled away.

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant (PW-2), Pranpur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2015 was registered on 27.10.2015 under Section 302 IPC. Police conducted investigation into the case and submitted a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. Finding that the offence alleged against the appellant was triable by a court of Sessions, the records were committed to the court of Sessions where charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried whereafter charge was framed on 01.03.2016.

5. To substantiate the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Hira Lal Singh (PW-1) and Pyare Lal Singh (PW-2) are the sons of the deceased. Kishan Singh (PW-3) is not a witness to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has identified his signature on the inquest report as Exhibit ‘2/1’. Parshuram Singh (PW-4) has been declared hostile after he made a statement that he is not aware of the occurrence and he had not made any statement before Police. Dr. S. N. Ray, (PW-5) is the Doctor who was posted at Sadar Hospital, Katihar as a Medical Officer on 28.10.2015 when the dead body of Chhutharu Singh was brought by Chowikadar 9/1 Vikram Ray (not examined) and Sheikh Jalil (not examined). PW-5 has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit ‘3’. Ranjeet Kumar Chowdhary (PW-6) was the Officer-in-Charge of Pranpur Police Station on 27.10.2015 who had registered the First Information Report on the basis of the written report submitted by PW-2 and had assumed the investigation of the case himself. Kamla Devi (PW-7) is the wife of the appellant who has been declared hostile.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, the following documents were marked exhibits without objection:-