The judgment underscores the requirement for the prosecution to establish key elements of a criminal case and the need for reliable and corroborated evidence, especially in cases relying on sole eyewitness testimony.

Prashant Kumar, J

Both these appeals arose from the judgment dated 27.09.2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. No. 43 of 2000/57 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellants of both the cases were convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and they are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The case of prosecution in short as per fard beyan of P.W. 3 Nonia Devi is that in the night of occurrence she was sleeping along with her husband Deo Narayan Marik and grand son Shaligram Marik in her new house. It is further alleged that in the late night co-villager, Anthawan Kotwal came and knocked the door and asked for opening the same. Whereupon, she opened the door and at that time she was holding a lantern. It is further alleged that suddenly Anthawan Kotwal, Arvind Marik, Arjun Mahamarik and Joytish Yadav entered inside the house armed with lathi. It is further alleged that they pressed the neck of informant with an intention to kill her and pushed her due to that she received injury on her head. Thereafter all the aforesaid four persons had pressed the chest, neck of informant’s husband Deonarayan Marik and her grand son Shaligram Marik. Thereafter the informant become unconscious. It is further stated that the informant had regained her consciousness next day at 3 P.M. at Godda Hospital. Then she came to know from her son and inmates of her family that her husband Deonarayan Marik and grand son Shaligram Marik have been murdered by the aforesaid four persons. It is further stated that the husband of the informant had purchased one and half katha of land from Anthwan Kotwal and thereafter out of that one katha of land was again sold to accused Arjun Yadav and Joyotish Yadav by Anthawan Kotwal and since then Arjun Yadav , Joyotish Yadav and Anthwan Kotwal are asking the husband of the informant for leaving the said land and for that purpose they were also threatening him. It is then alleged that when the husband of the informant did not leave the said land, the accused persons had assaulted her husband and grandson with an intention to commit their murder, due to that the husband and grand son of informant had died.

3. On the basis of aforesaid fard beyan, the police instituted the present case under section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under section 302/34 and also under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions as the offence under section 302 and 307 of the IPC are exclusively triable by the court of sessions. After commitment, the court below has framed and explained the charges to the appellants under section 302/34 and 307 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses. After the close of the case of prosecution, the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial.

4. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the court below convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the IPC. However the court below acquitted all the appellants from the charge leveled against them under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that all the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also ordered to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against that the present appeal has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case is based upon the sole testimony of P.W. 3, the informant who claims herself to be the eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 3 does not find support from the objective findings