The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence and the examination of key witnesses in criminal cases, particularly when based on circumstantial and direct evidence.

D.N. Upadhyay, J.

These criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2003 and 29.07.2003 respectively passed by the Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No.262 of 1987 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2049 of 1987 arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 124 of 1987 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

2. The facts reveal from fardbeyan of Jhantu Mandal recorded on 03.08.1987 at 14.15 hours at Barakar Police Station are that on 02.08.1987 at about 8.30 p.m. the informant accompanied by Mantu Mandal (deceased) and Ajay proceeded for Gopal Hotel. They reached Gopal Hotel at 9.00 p.m. The informant noticed presence of 56 young boys near the hotel. Addressing one out of them, Mantu told what is the matter. Thereafter Mantu started talking with them and told the informant to go back home and he would be coming after a while. Name of one of the boy was disclosed as Jagdish. On the following morning there was rumour in the locality that dead body of a person is lying near Barakar river bank. The informant went to the place and identified dead body of Mantu Mandal. He had noticed injuries on his head, neck and abdomen. It is also disclosed that two boys had been to the house of Mantu Mandal and they had told mother of Mantu Mandal to send him to Gopal Hotel.

On the basis of fardbeyan of Jhantu Mandal, Chirkunda P.S. Case No.124 of 1987 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown was registered. During investigation complicity of the appellants came in light, they were apprehended and after collecting evidence, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.262 of 1987.

Charges under Section 302/34 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three appellants were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses including Sanjhiya Devi, mother of the deceased PW1 and Dr. Vinod Kumar PW5 who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Mantu Mandal.

Appellant Dilip Singh got himself examined as DW1. The trial Judge, placing reliance on the documents and evidences available, held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and inflicted sentence, as indicated above.

3. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant has not been examined. The scribe of fardbeyan did not come forward and therefore, fardbeyan has not been proved. It is further contended that F.I.R. was registered on 03.08.1987 but it was received in court on 07.08.1987 i.e. four days after registration of the F.I.R. Since Investigating Officer has not been examined, delay in sending the F.I.R. remained unexplained. It is submitted that fardbeyan of Jhantu Mandal is antedated and after thought because of the fact that PW3 Anand Ravidas has stated in his deposition that he was apprehended by Barakar police on the following morning i.e. on 03.08.1987 at about 9.00 a.m. and he was handed over to Chirkunda Police. In his examination-in-chief and also in his cross-examination he has stated that his statement regarding occurrence was recorded by police to which he had signed. Anand Ravidas PW3 has projected himself as an eye witness and he has given vivid detail of occurrence in his deposition in court. Had it been so, the statement given by him before the police on 03.08.1987 at about 9-10 a.m. was required to be considered as F.I.R. Again, due to non-examination of the I.O. this question remained unanswered as to what happened to that statement which was given by PW3 before the police. Learned counsel has further argued that