The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the testimony of a sole eyewitness to be wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence, failing which the accused may be entitled to acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Shilan (A-1), Kanhaiya (A-2), Om Kumar (A-4), Sarwan Kumar (A-5) & Sanyasi (A-6) have jointly preferred Cr.A.No.765/2016, whereas Rakesh Kumar (A-3) has independently preferred Cr.A. No.601/2016 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment & order dated 8-4-2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.176/2015, by which they have been convicted for offences under Sections 148 & 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months and to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

2. Since both the criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 8-4-2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.176/2015 and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 8-8-2015 at 9.30 a.m., at Village Korbi, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, in furtherance of their common object, the appellants herein armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Ramcharan (since deceased) by deadly weapons by which he suffered grievous injuries and thereafter, in order to screen themselves from legal punishment, they hide the dead body in the house of Ramcharan and thereby committed the offence. The matter was reported by Itwara Bai (PW-1) – mother of deceased Ramcharan to the police station pursuant to which inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-35 by Chandrama Singh Rajput (PW-12). Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-37 by Chandrama Singh Rajput (PW-12). The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Tomar (PW-10) vide postmortem report Ex.P-27 in which cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory arrest due to head injury with excessive bleeding and death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, memorandum statements of all six accused persons were recorded pursuant to which wooden sticks / bamboo sticks were seized and clothes were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record.

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused / appellants were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 & 201 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for conducting the trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 46 documents Exs.P-1 to P-46. The appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence. They have examined one witness Dharamlal Nirmalkar (DW-1) and exhibited one document Ex.D-1 i.e. the statement of Itwara Bai recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC at their instance in support of their case. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the guilt.

6. The trial Court after considering ocular, oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused/appellants only under Sections 148 & 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and acquitted them of the charge under Section 201 of the IPC against which these appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

7. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the accused/appellants have been convicted solely on the basis o