Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2.We have heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, the learned Advocate for the two appellants [Nathuni Sah in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 941 of 2017 and Bulet Sah @ Raj Kumar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 935 of 2017] and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP for the State.

3.The appellants have been convicted under Sections 34 2, 323, 324, 307, 302/34 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2017, arising out of Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 65 of 2016. By order dated 05.07.2017, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days under Section 34 2/34 IPC; RI for six months, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 /34 IPC; RI for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days under Section 324 /34 IPC; RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for three months under Section 307 /34 IPC; RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for six months under Section 302 /34 IPC; RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for three months under Section 120-B IPC and RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for six months under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4.All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

5.The appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

6.One Guddu Kumar is alleged to have been killed at the hands of the appellants. According to the prosecution case, appellant/ Bulet Sah @ Raj Kumar slit the throat of the deceased while he was pinned down on the ground by several accused persons including appellant/ Nathuni Das. Only two appellants were charge-sheeted whereas with respect to the other accused persons named in the FIR, investigation was kept pending.

7.The FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, viz., Manoj Kumar (PW-4), who has alleged that on 13.05.2016, on the asking of appellant/ Bulet Sah, his brother Guddu (deceased) wanted to meet him. However, the informant, Guddu and one Nandu Kumar Das (PW-1) went together on a motorcycle to meet appellant/ Bulet Sah. No sooner had they reached the designated place, many accused persons, who were hiding from before, came to the front and caught hold of the deceased. Thereafter, the neck of the deceased was slit by appellant/ Bulet Sah. When Nand Kumar Das (PW-1) wanted to intervene and rescue the deceased, he too was assaulted by appellant/ Bulet Sah. He could anyhow save himself. The informant had further claimed that a little before the occurrence, he had gone to attend to the call of nature and when he heard the commotion at some distance, he used his torch light to see the occurrence. He could also manage to save himself. On his cries, many persons of the neighbourhood and the village arrived there. Sohan Das and Subhash Das also came forward and snatched the knife from the hand of appellant/ Bulet Sah. The infor