In a murder case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes presenting reliable eyewitness testimony and properly proving the recovery of any murder weapons.

ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.

The criminal appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed in a sessions trial by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Murshidabad convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default clause.

In the trial total 8 accused were charged but the Trial Court convicted these appellants and acquitted the rests three.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:-

On September 16, 1998 the victim Maniruddin Sk. is the uncle of P.W. 5 Imdadul Haque and he was a teacher of Rajarampur High School. On 16th September, 1998 in the afternoon while the victim was returning home from school the P.W. 5 Imdadul Haque was also returning from Pikepara village where he went for some personal work. Near Rajarampur High School Imdadul met the victim and thereafter they were returned home together. They were proceeding through Rajarampur Moram Road and as soon as they reached near the house of Biren Sarkar, these accused and others being armed with various deadly weapons surrounded them from all side and pounced upon Maniruddin. The accused Entaj Sk. first assaulted Maniruddin with an iron rod on his right hand and asked the others to finish him, when all the accused started assaulting him with the weapons in their hands and consequently victim suffered injuries all over his persons and fell down on the ground and died at once. Seeing this assault the witness Imdadul raised alarm and started running away from the place out of fear and being attracted by the alarm raised by him many villagers collected to the spot and the accused persons fled away.

Then the incident was reported to the local police station by Imdadul Haque and a case against the present appellants and others was registered. The police upon receipt of the complaint registered a case under Sections 341/326/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/34 IPC against the present appellants and three others. Thereafter, the present appellants and three others were placed on trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Murshidabad to answer charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution during the trial to bring home charges against the present appellants examined as many as 13 witnesses. The P.W. 5 Imdadul Haque, P.W. 7 Ekramul Haque, P.W. 10 Azmul Sk., P.W. 11 Jokimuddin Sk. And P.W. 12 Nurul Sk. were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Both the P.W. 1 Habibur Rahaman and P.W. 2 Anisur Rahaman were examined as witnesses of seizure of offending weapon two knives. The P.W. 6 Enamul Haque, P.W. 8 Makbul Hossain and P.W. 9 Md. Sademan Ali were examined as the witnesses to the inquest. The P.W. 4 Dr. Indranath Chatterjee is the doctor who held the post mortem. The P.W. 3 is a constable who took the dead body for post mortem. The P.W. 13 Sankar Kumar Roy Chowdhury is the Investigation Officer of the case.

4. Thus, the prosecution relied on the evidence of five witnesses to show that the murderous assault in which the victim died was taken place before them and two other witnesses, viz., P.W. 1 Habibur Rahaman and P.W. 2 Anisur Rahaman for establishing the fact that the offending knives were recovered from the residence of the accused Esar Sk. and Humayun Sk. from their residence at their instance, whereas on the evidence of the doctor P.W. 4 Dr. Indranath Chatterjee to prove the death was homicidal one.

5. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the very outset submitted that the Trial Court has disbelieved P.W. 10 Azmul Sk., P.W. 11 Jokimuddin Sk., P.W. 12 Nurul Sk., who according to the prosecution claimed to be eyewitnesses. Similarly, the Trial Court did not accept the evidence of P.W. 1 Habibur Rahaman and P.W. 2 Anisur Rahaman on the question of recov