The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Raja Ram Rai, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 446 of 2015 arising out of Vaishali P.S. Case No. 111 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/-.

Prosecution Case

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, namely, Gajendra Thakur (PW-8) alleged in his written report that on 19.04.2015 after having dinner, he along with his family members went to a sleep. The informant and his wife were sleeping in the verandah of the house and his son was sleeping in the ‘kothari’. On 20.04.2015 at about 01:45 AM (in the night), the informant heard some restlessness sound coming from the ‘kothari’ then he and his wife went there and saw that from the ‘kothari’, Md. Alauddin (this appellant) and Md. Yunus having ‘chapar’ in their hand were fleeing. When the informant and his wife went in the ‘kothari’, they saw that their son, namely, Subodh Kumar (deceased) was soaked in blood and there was a cut mark on the right side of his neck and he had died on the bed. On hearing their hue and cry, their neighbours came there. The reason for the alleged occurrence is that Soni Khatoon (sister of the appellant) used to talk to Subodh Kumar, the son of the informant, on phone which the informant and his wife had objected to and talked to her parents and brother regarding this. Despite this, said Soni Khatoon used to talk to the deceased. The informant alleges that this appellant along with Md. Yunus and Soni Khatoon have killed his son Subodh Kumar under a conspiracy by cutting his neck with ‘chapar’. The informant alleges that the occurrence has been witnessed by the co-villagers, namely, (1) Suresh Thakur, (2) Ashok Thakur, (3) Gopal Pandit, (4) Krishnanandan Kumar and others.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, formal FIR was registered being Vaishali P.S. Case No. 111 of 2015 dated 20.04.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/120B IPC against three accused persons, namely, (1) Md. Alauddin, (2) Md. Yunus and (3) Soni Khatoon. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet vide chargesheet no. 128 of 2015 dated 16.07.2015 under Sections 302/34/120B IPC against said three accused persons. Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance on 26.10.2015 of the offence under Sections 302/34/120B IPC against the accused persons (1) Md. Alauddin, (2) Md. Yunus and (3) Soni Khatoon found that the records of the accused Soni Khatoon and Md. Yunus have already been sent to the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 21.04.2015 and 06.05.2015 respectively and directed the office to send the photostat copy of cognizance order and chargesheet to the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned Magistrate committed the records of accused Md. Alauddin (appellant) to the court of sessions on 30.11.2015.

5. After commitment of the case records, Sessions Trial No. 446 of 2015 was registered in which charges were framed on 05.01.2016 under Sections 302/34 and 120B IPC against this appellant and were explained to him. In course of trial, altogether 12 prosecution witnesses were examined and several documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The defence also brought two witnesses. The list o