IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, can establish guilt in murder cases, even in the absence of direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The judgment of conviction dated December 22, 2015 and order of sentence dated December 23, 2015 passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Purulia in connection with Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 221 of 2015, has been assailed in the present appeal.

2. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant was also sentenced with life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On May 07, 2015, the wife of the victim lodged a written complaint with the police to the effect that on May 06, 2015 her husband went to his in-laws’ house. She had talks with her husband over telephone at 8.00 p.m. when her husband disclosed that he was at the house of one Budhu Singh. At about 10.00 pm in the night she came to know that the son of one of her brother-in-law in distant relation i.e. the appellant killed her husband near a school namely Dhadka Uparpara Sishu Siksha Kendra. Hearing such news the de facto complainant with her family members came to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying dead with broken scalp and bleeding injuries on the back side of the aforesaid school near the mother’s house of the appellant. The de facto complainant also disclosed that she came to know that on May 06, 2015 at around 9/9.30 pm the appellant dealt a powerful blow on the head of the victim with the help of a thick wooden handle of Gaiti with an intention to kill him and her husband died instantly. It was also stated that her husband was killed by the appellant in order to grab the share of lands of the victim. The appellant also assaulted Budhu Singh causing serious bleeding injuries. The appellant eloped after the incident. Budhu Singh was taken to Bandowan hospital by the local people for treatment.

4. On the basis of such written complaint, Bandowan Police Station case No. 18/15 dated May 07, 2015 under Section 302/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant.

5. The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet.

6. On the basis of materials in the case diary, charges under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant on August 13, 2015. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. There was one injured witness who stated that he fell unconscious being assaulted and as such his testimony cannot be relied.

8. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not been able to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the exclusive guilt of the appellant.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and given the contradictory statements of the prosecution witness, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

10. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence leading to serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution case.

11. On the other hand, learned advocate for the state submitted that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances which lead to the only proposition of the guilt of the appellant. Moreover, the injured eye witness has support