The sufficiency of corroborating evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, in establishing guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. - The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.06.2014 and 26.06.2014 respectively passed by the Learned 2nd Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial no. 01(9)2013 arising out of Sessions Case no. 405 (July), 2013 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 years.

1. The prosecution case narrated an incident of 19.04.2013 at about 8 pm when the complainant was dining at the courtyard of his house he saw his sister-in-law, the victim namely Sarati Soren, wife of Bablu Soren fall on the ground in a bleeding condition, crying aloud.

2. The complainant hastened to the spot and saw the appellant namely Saidul Islam standing there having inflicted an injury to his sister-in- law with a knife. The complainant tried to catch hold of him who however, slipped from his clutches and ran away. The complainant raised a hue and cry but could not captivate the appellant and returned to the spot where his sister-in-law lay unconscious in a bleeding condition. Thereafter, the victim was taken to a doctor namely Tulu Babu who declared her dead. The appellant stayed behind the house of Bablu Soren, the husband of the victim. The complainant demanded the assailant to be punished.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered namely PS case No. 96/2013 dated 20.04.2013 under Section 302 IPC, initiating an investigation which culminated into submission of the chargesheet. Subsequently, charges were framed under Section 302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 9 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the evidence on record was not appreciated in entirety since the chain of circumstances was not complete. The substantive evidence of PW1 differed from his complaint. He being a post occurrence witness deposed before the Court for the first time. Moreover, the offending weapon, control earth and blood stained earth were not seized. The wearing apparels were not sent to the FSL for examination. The motive to commit the offence was not established. That the appellant had waited at the place of occurrence for a considerable period of 4 minutes after stabbing the victim was improbable. The prosecution having failed to prove the motive to commit the crime and the chain of circumstances not been complete, prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appeal may be allowed.

5. The Ld. Advocate for the State submitted that the injuries enumerated in the post mortem report were in consonance with that of the inquest report as well as the manner and intent of inflicting injury on the victim. The de facto complainant i.e. PW 1 saw the appellant to flee from the place, tried to grab him, holding on to his 'Genji' who however escaped from his clutches forcibly, established direct evidence and his version was corroborated through the Post Mortem Report and other post occurrence witnesses. The prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

6. PW 1, the de facto complainant stated the incident occurred on 19.04.2013 at about 8 P.M. Consequent to a clamour, discarding his meal, he went out of his house and saw the appellant Sk. Saidul inflicting, stab injury on to the chest of his sister-in-law Sarati Soren with a knife and thereafter stood beside the victim. The victim cried aloud and the complainant along with his brother Jugal Soren rushed to her. The victim reached the courtyard of the house of the complainant and fell on the ground sustaining bleeding injury. In the mean time, the complainant tried to apprehend the appellant, caught hold o