The judgment emphasizes the need for clear and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of witness reliability and consistent evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

On 28th December, 2010 at about 03:00 PM the fardbeyan of Mohan Mahto was recorded near river Kari by S.K. Suman, Officer Incharge of Bhagabandh Outpost within Putki PS. An information along with the fardbeyan of Mohan Mahto was sent to Putki PS at 08:00 PM and on that basis Putki (Bhagabandh) PS Case No. 115 of 2010 was lodged against Umesh Kumar Mahto and Puspa Devi for committing murder of their son Ajay Kumar Mahto - Puspa Devi is the step mother. In his fardbeyan, Mohan Mahto has stated that at about 01:00 PM Bablu Mahto informed him that Ajay Kumar Mahto was murdered and his dead body was concealed at cremation ground near river Kari - Ajay Kumar Mahto was son of his daughter. Upon receiving this information he had gone to the house of his son-in-law who was not there at that time and his grand children told him that on 26.12.2010 Ajay Kumar Mahto was strangulated by their father and step mother with a cloth. The informant has further stated that Umesh Kumar Mahto threatened his younger son not to disclose the incident to anyone and on 27.12.2010, early morning at 03:00 AM, buried the dead body of his son in the cremation ground. The informant has seen that head and feet of the dead body of his grandson were out of the ground and expressed his apprehension that his son-in-law and Puspa Devi had killed Ajay Kumar. Mahto because Umesh Kumar Mahto was suspecting illicit relationship of his son with Puspa Devi, his fourth wife. In course of investigation statement of Vijay Kumar Mahto, younger son of Umesh Kumar Mahto, was recorded but no information IS available on record about N andini Kumari the sister of the deceased who was aged about 9 years at the time of the occurrence. The statement of Vijay Kumar Mahto was recorded also under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC). PW2 and PW4 are distantly related to PW3, the informant. PW6 was Officer Incharge of Bhagabandh OP, PW9 is the Circle Officer who has conducted the inquest proceedings and PW8 is the Judicial Magistrate who has recorded statement of Vijay Kumar Mahto under section 164 CrPC on 15.01.2011.

2. Dr. Shailendra Kumar who has conducted the postmortem examination on 29.12.2010 at PMCH, Dhanbad around 12:30 PM found one ligature mark on front of the neck 1 ¼ inch wide, below the vocal cord. The ligature mark which surrounded the neck completely and horizontally had become hard, dark brown leathery and like parchment. On dissection ecchymosis was seen underneath the ligature mark all over front of the neck on both sides. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation and time elapsed since death was 48 hours [(+)(-) 12 hours]. On completion of the investigation a chargesheet was filed against the accused and both have faced the trial on the charge under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has held that In his statement under section 164 CrPC which was recorded within one month of the Occurrence Vijay Kumar Mahto has given a similar narration of the Occurrence as he deposed in the Court and therefore chance of his tendering tutored evidence on the ground that he had remained under influence of his maternal grandfather was not probable. His evidence that his parents strangulated his brother to death was corroborated by the medical evidence and therefore on the ground of non-production of the seized articles such as motorcycle, bedsheet and hoe (Kudal) the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. The learned trial Judge has ventured to consider character of the witnesses and conduct of the accused who according to the prosecution did not inform the police about missing of his son. In paragraph no. 28 of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2011, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the accused intended to kill Ajay Kumar Mahto and their criminal act was not covered by any exception in section 30