The principle of benefit of doubt necessitates acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with inconsistent eyewitness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

Heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Advocate for the sole appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 341 and 323 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in connection with Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2015, arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 338 of 2015. By order dated 08.05.2017, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

3. No separate sentence has been awarded to the convict for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC.

4. The appellant is alleged to have killed his own younger brother in the night of 26.05.2015. The FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased, viz., Rubi Devi (P.W.6). She has alleged that at about 6.00 P.M. on 25.05.2015, for no good reason, her sister-in-law i.e. the wife of the appellant hit her by a sharpnel. She was taken by her husband (deceased) to hospital for treatment. When the couple came back, the appellant is said to have met them at the door and slapped the deceased. The reason attributed is that he did not want Rubi Devi to be treated for such minor injury. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have taken out a dagger from his pocket, seeing which the deceased ran out of the house. The appellant is then said to have chased him. The deceased was hit thrice by the dagger. With the help of villagers, P.W. 6 took her husband to a hospital but no sooner they had reached the gate of the hospital, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries.

5. However, P.W.6 was under treatment in the hospital at the time of recording of the fardbeyan. This fardbeyan was recorded on 26.05.2015 at 7.45 AM at Sadar Hospital, Khagaria in the Surgical Ward No. 2.

6. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan of P.W.6, a case vide Khagaria P.S. Case No. 338 of 2015 dated 26.05.2015 was registered for investigation for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant, whereupon the appellant was tried.

8. The Trial Court after having examined nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

9. At the Trial, Narayan Sahni (P.W. 1), a signatory to the FIR and father of the deceased; Mukesh Sahni (P.W. 2), a co-villager; Arjun Sahni (P.W. 4) and Sanjeet Sahni (P.W. 5), known to the family of the deceased, turned hostile. They had no idea about the occurrence.

10. The father-in-law of the deceased, viz., Shyam Sahni (P.W. 3) only claimed to have heard on telephone that his son-in-law had been killed by his brother. Beyond this, he had nothing to offer to the Trial Court.

11. The only person who has supported the prosecution case is the informant (wife of the deceased). She has alleged that after returning from the hospital along with her husband, the appellant slapped the deceased in the courtyard. When the deceased saw a dagger in the hand of the appellant, he ran for safety but was chased.

12. The occurrence is said to have taken place about 50 meters away from the house of P.W. 6, which is located near the shop of one Tuna Chaurasia. Interestingly the investigator never recorded his statement nor was he brought by the prosecution to the witness-stand to prove the case.

13. When confronted, P.W. 6 reiterated that no sooner had the deceased stepped inside the house, he was stabbed by the appellant. This statement, according to P.W. 6, was also made by her when asked by the investigator.

14. However, she had not told the police that after being injured, the deceased ran for saving his life and the appellant threatened everybody not to restrain him or else he would stab others as well.

15. Dr. Purusottam Kumar Singh (P.W. 8) had conducted the post-mortem examinati