Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in S.Tr. No. 532 of 2000 in connection with Kudhni (Turki) P.S. Case No. 04 of 1999 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC).

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court has been pleased to convict the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial Court has also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-upon each of the appellants.

Prosecution Case

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Bhola Manjhi, who is the brother of the deceased and has been examined as P.W. 6 in the present case. In his fardbeyan recorded by S.I. Ajay Kumar, I/c of Turki O.P. on 08.01.1999 at 7 A.M. at Turki O.P., the informant (P.W. 6) has stated as under:-

On 07.01.1999 at about 6.30 hours, brother of the informant, namely, Maheshwar Manjhi @ Bhonu Manjhi was called by the villagers, namely, Meghan Manjhi, Laxman Manjhi, Bhuil Manjhi, Laxmi Manjhi, Badri Manjhi on the pretext of some purpose. Maheshwar Manjhi went with them. The informant also followed them. They took him in the ‘potato field’ of Jugal Manjhi, where Jagdev Manjhi, Gorai Manjhi, Shankar Manjhi, Raktu Manjhi, Khublal Manjhi, Tuntun Manjhi, Deeplal Manjhi, Chulhai Manjhi being equipped with arms were standing. Meghan Manjhi took ‘Bhala’ from Khublal Manjhi and made a blow upon Maheshwar Manjhi @ Bhonu Manjhi, which hit him upon his neck. Thereafter, other co-accused persons made assault with various arms upon him leading to serious injuries upon his body. As a result of which, Maheshwar Manjhi died on the spot. The informant raised alarm. The villagers, namely, Langar Manjhi, Dhodha Manjhi, Bechan Manjhi, Akal Manjhi and others rushed there, having seen them, the accused persons ran away. The informant with the help of the villagers brought the dead body of Maheshwar Manjhi at the O.P. of the police station on 08.01.1999. The cause of occurrence is said to be the theft of grain of Langar Manjhi.

5. Upon investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against altogether thirteen accused persons. The chargesheet was filed for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (West) took cognizance of the offences and transferred the records to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Muzaffarpur for the purpose of commitment. On 31.08.2000, the records were committed to the Court of Sessions where the trial was registered. During trial, two accused persons, namely, Laxman Manjhi and Khublal Manjhi absconded therefore, their records were separated on 21.07.2007 and 10.09.2007 respectively from the original records. Another accused Deeplal Manjhi and Badri Manjhi died during trial therefore, the proceedings against them were closed. In this manner, only nine accused faced the trial.

6. In the trial Court, the charges were explained to the accused persons in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be tried. They claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated because of some earlier grudge against them.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited certain documentary evidences whereafter the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded innocence. The defence examined one witness, who is the Assistant D