The consistent evidence of eyewitnesses and the postmortem report can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.

JUDGMENT

Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. (C.A.V.) - Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J.- The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 and 29.09.2007 respectively, passed by the learned XXth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 99/2002, arising out of Hatia P.S. Case no. 170/2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 2495 of 2001, whereby and where-under, the appellant was found guilty of committing the murder of the deceased and has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life.

2. The case of the prosecution, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Lal Ashok Nath Shahdeo (P.W.12), is that on 4.9.2001 at about 5:50 hrs. he came to know that his father Lal Bhanu Pratap Nath Shahdeo (deceased) has been assaulted by a person with a sharp edged weapon at Tipudana. On the information, the informant went at the place of occurrence and saw that some persons were taking his father in a Tempo for treatment. At the place of occurrence, the informant heard that Somra Oraon gave several frasa blows upon the deceased due to which, he got injury on his forehead, cheek, left shoulder and back side of neck and blood was oozing from the injuries. He further heard that Somra Oraon fled towards Balsiring and entered in the Ancillary area. It is alleged by the informant that his father had an enmity with Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo and Dhrub Nath Shahdeo. His family had an old enmity with Somra Oraon who had also killed the brother of the informant namely, Lal Umesh Nath Shahdeo. It is further alleged that Somra Oraon is also involved in the murder of several other persons and recently he has come out of jail.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Hatia P.S. case no. 170 of 2001 was registered under Sections 302/120B IPC. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and three other accused persons under Sections 302, 109 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2002. The charges were framed against the accused Somra under Sections 302 of the IPC and against rest accused under Sections 302/109 of the IPC to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has altogether examined 14 witnesses and after closure of the witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

4. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for the alleged offences and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge before this Court. However, the learned trial court acquitted the remaining accused persons by holding that there is nothing on record to show that they had any meeting with Somra Oraon i.e. the present appellant to make out planning for committing murder of the deceased.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence on the ground that there are several discrepancies and material contradictions amongst the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The postmortem report is also contrary to the allegation levelled against the appellant. The seizure list witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and has also been declared hostile. No expert report regarding the blood stained earth has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation against the appellant. He also submits that the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased is absent in this case and the question put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not in accordance with law, which caused prejudice to him. The counsel for the appellant further submits that P.W.3 is absolutely unreliable witness and therefore, his evidence could not be recognized. S