The conviction for murder was reversed due to insufficient evidence, lack of motive, and failure to adhere to procedural protections for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the convict Srikanta Baskey against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2018 and 10.10.2018 respectively passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 2, Purulia, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2017, Sessions Trial No.09 of 2018, arising out of GR Case No. 1192 of 2017 in connection with Puncha Police Station Case No. 36 of 2017 dated 13.08.2017 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code convicting the accused and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on the grounds, inter alia, that the impugned order of conviction and sentence is devoid of proper appreciation of evidence on record and further the same is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and hence the same is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the prosecution could not prove the seizure and establish any motive behind the murder.

2. It is also alleged that the prosecution did not produce any FSL Report. Moreover, the Learned Trial Judge did not put necessary caution to the accused. During examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. material circumstances were not put to the accused persons. Mr. Moinak Bakshi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution builds up its case against the accused primarily on the deposition of PW1, who happened to be the neighbour of the deceased and who was washing utensils at a nearby tap when she saw the incident of murder. No other witnesses had witnessed the alleged murder committed by the present appellant. The other witnesses claimed to have heard about the incident but did not put any light on their source of such information. Even the husband of the PW1 did not mention that he heard the matter from his wife i.e. PW1. As such the conduct of the eye witnesses appears to be far from normal, in as much as the PW1 did not raise any hue and cry upon witnessing such an incident nor did she mention it to her husband.

3. The learned counsel has further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the PW1 mentioned that the accused arrived at the place of occurrence from inside his house. This fact remains uncorroborated in her evidence during trial. Nor does it get any corroboration from the evidence of the family members of the victim as well as the accused. The inquest report which preceded the lodging of FIR does not mention the eye witness of the incident. In her evidence, during trial, the PW1 did not clearly state that she saw the incident of murder. Her evidence is inadmissible. The inquest report does not show that PW1 was present at the place of occurrence.

4. Mr. Bakshi has further submitted that the recovery of the offending weapon pursuant to the statement given by the accused fails the test of admissibility as enumerated under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The witnesses to the seizure of the weapon do not mention the presence of the accused at the place and time of seizure. Furthermore, the confessional statement to police leading to the seizure of the offending weapon is not exhibited. The seized weapon does not help the prosecution in establishing any fact discovered in relation to crime. No FSL Report was produced or exhibited during the trial.

5. Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate for the appellant, has further submitte