The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and the delay in transmitting the F.I.R. to the Court is not fatal to the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

Ananda Sen, J. (CAV) - This appeal has been filed by Tejo Sao, son of late Nemdhari Sao, challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2006 and Order of sentence dated 31.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-V), Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Kishori Prasad son of Nemdhari Sao recorded on 15.02.2002 at about 10.30 a.m. at Primary Health Center, Barhi stating therein that on the same day at about 9.a.m in the morning his wife was cooking meal in the Verandah of her house. In the meantime his brother Tejo Sao started quarreling on the pretext of partitioning properties. The wife of the informant told him that they had constructed the house after taking loan from the Bank, thus they will not give share of the house. The brother of the informant, Tejo Sao, took an Axe, which was cleverly concealed by him, and chased this informant who fled towards the road. Then getting an opportunity, Tejo Sao with Tangi assaulted the wife of this informant with intention to kill her. He struck her from behind and injured her. The wife of this informant started screaming and fell down. Before this informant could reach there, this appellant fled with the Tangi to the southern side. The informant found his wife unconscious. She was taken to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. The informant alleged that in a preplanned manner this appellant has committed murder of the deceased.

3. The police, after recording the fardbeyan, registered Barhi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2002 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. The Court below after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Session.

4. On 17.01.2005 charge was framed against this appellant, for committing an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded " not guilty", and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution altogether 5 witnesses were examined. P.W.1 is Premlata. P.W.2 is Rabi Prabha. P.W.3 is Kishori Pd. P.W.4 is Dr. Chandra Prakash Choudhary. P.W.5 is Ramlagan Singh.

6. After closure of the evidence, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defence had also adduced two witnesses in support of his innocence.

7. The trial Court after considering the materials on record and after hearing the arguments of the parties convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

9. Mrs. Priya Shresth, Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is a long delay in transmitting the F.I.R. to the Court which is fatal for the prosecution. She submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.02.2002, but it was received by the Court only on 18.02.2002 which is apparent from the endorsement made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. She submits that there is no explanation for the said delay. She submits that the entire case hinges upon the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who are the daughters and husband of the deceased, and are the interested witnesses. She submits that on the basis of the interested witnesses the appellant cannot be convicted. It is further submitted that the defence witness nos. 1 and 2 who are, the mother and brother of this appellant and the informant, has narrated the correct version about the occurrence and the court below w