Familial relationships do not inherently discredit witness testimony; credible evidence can uphold a conviction despite investigative shortcomings.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Nachiketa Jha, learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC vide Judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. X, Saran in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2016, G.R. Case No. 6322 of 2015, arising out of Manjhi P.S. Case No. 221 of 2015. By order dated 31.01.2019, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. No default clause has been provided in the sentence.

3. One Hewanti Devi is alleged to have been stabbed to death by the appellant. The appellant is the relative of the deceased. The FIR has been lodged by the husband of the deceased, viz., Ranglal Yadav (P.W. 5). In his written report which has been scribed by one Anil Yadav (not examined), P.W. 5 has alleged that at about 10.00 A.M. on 09.11.2015 the appellant, on being annoyed with the pile of bricks in front of his house having been removed, started fighting with the deceased. He then stabbed her and ran away. The victim (deceased) was taken to a private doctor at Mohammadpur, from where the patient was referred to PHC, Manjhi, where she died during the course of treatment.

4. The cause of occurrence as stated in the written report is the old land dispute which had cropped up after the partition in the family. It has also been alleged that earlier, the appellant was also charged for murdering the cousin of P.W. 5, in which case he was convicted and sentenced and at the time of this occurrence, he was out on bail.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted written report, Manjhi P.S. Case No. 221 of 2015 dated 09.11.2015 was registered for investigation against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

6. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against him and the case went to Trial.

7. The Trial Court, after having examined seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the doctor and the investigator, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate while commenting upon the judgment has submitted that the Trial Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective and failed to notice the motivating factor for P.W. 5 to frame the appellant in this case.

9. The appellant and the deceased stayed in the same house but in different house-hold. There is a common courtyard. He has further urged that the written report which was recorded on 09.11.2015 saw the light of the day after ten days i.e. on 19.11.2015, against the mandate of the Code that such FIRs ought to be dispatched to the Judicial Officer forthwith.

10. Such delay, Mr. Jha has contended, has caused serious dent in the prosecution version and in fact, it lends support to the proposition that the FIR was filed after consultation in order to prevent the appellant from staking his claim in the family property.

11. Assuming, it has been argued, that the information about the appellant having been convicted for the murder of another family member earlier were true, that also does not make out a case against the appellant in the present set of facts as no independent person has been examined to support the prosecution version. The Trial Court has relied on a specious plea of the prosecution that no independent person was forthcoming in deposing against the appellant because of his earlier conviction in a murder case. This does not appear to be correct for the reason that I.O./Prabhakar Pathak (P.W. 7) has very candidly disclosed in his cross-examination that apart from the family members of the deceased, he never chose to examine anyone of the villagers or independent persons.

12. Thus commenting on the entire prosecution case, Mr. Jha has argued that the investigation is shoddy and perhaps the police also went in collusion with P.W. 5 in taking a short-cut approach in concluding the investigation and sending up the appellant for Trial.

13. The other limb of argum