Eyewitness testimony carries significant evidentiary weight; convictions can be sustained on reliable single eyewitness accounts without need for corroboration if found trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J

1. CRA No. 175 of 2020 - This criminal appeal, preferred by appellants No.1 to 5/accused persons under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.23/2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. ACQA No. 71 of 2020- This acquittal appeal, preferred by the appellant/complainant, arises out of the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.23/2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondents/accused persons Nos.1 to 13 of the charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act, 1989”).

3. Since both the above captioned appeals arise out of the same Special Sessions Case No.23/2016, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the convicted accused shall be referred to as ‘A-1 to A-5’, and the acquitted co-accused shall be referred to as ‘R-1 to R-13’ respectively.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased- Ramlal had a long-standing dispute with accused- Shankar (died during trial), appellant No.1 Gajanand and appellant No.2 Seuk regarding his ancestral land, which the said accused persons had allegedly encroached upon and raised constructions over there. In 2012, the Naib-Tehsildar, Balodabazar had issued notices and passed a stay order against them, which was repeatedly violated, resulting in registration of Case No.134/2013 under Section 188 of IPC. On 21.06.2016 at about 8:30 a.m., deceased- Ramlal, his wife- Taman Bai (deceased) and their sons Aniket (deceased) and Manoj (PW-1) were digging a pit to install a pole for fencing the disputed land. At that time, the female/co-accused (acquitted)- Jama Bai (R-5), Brihaspati Bai (R-6), Satrupa Bai (R-7), Baisakhin Bai (R-8), Chandrabhaga Bai (R-9), Lalita Bai (R-10), Ku. Lata (R-11), Amrika Bai (R-12) & Rupa Bai (R-13), arrived at the spot, objected to the digging, claimed ownership over the land, abused the deceased family and threatened them to life. Immediately thereafter, appellant Nos.1 to 5, namely, Gajanand, Seuk, Khemraj, Pitambar and Umesh along with deceased accused-Shankar and respondent Nos.1 to 4, Hemant, Kamal, Leeladhar & Kamlesh, reached the spot. When deceased- Ramlal asserted that he had succeeded in the alleged land proceedings, the accused persons abused him. Appellant No.2 Seuk snatched the axe from Ramlal; appellant No.4 Pitambar snatched a small axe from Taman Bai; appellant No.5 Umesh snatched the spade from Aniket; appellant No.3 Khemraj picked up a shovel lying there; respondent No.1 Hemant carried a stick; and appellant No.1 Gajanand snatched a stick from Manoj (PW-1) and thereafter, appellant No.2 Seuk assaulted deceased- Ramlal on the head