Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of witnesses do not energise prosecution case and falsity of allegations levelled against appellants lie threadbare on a dissection of evidence of eye-witnesses Pas has been taken note of earlier - Prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, appellants deserves to be acquitted from the charges against them.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.07.2015 (sentence passed on 31.07.2015) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 201/34 of I.P.C.

3. The prosecution story arising out of an FIR instituted by Jairam Munda is to the effect that the son of the informant had gone to his in-laws’ place on 05.02.2013 at village Panchpadwa in the district of Lohardaga. On 06.02.2013 at about 8 AM, he came to know that his son has been murdered by Boda Munda @ Suman Munda, Birsa Munda @ Runka Munda, Jama Munda @ Sushil Munda and Arti Kumari @ Sukar Kumari. At this he along with his another son reached Panchpadwa, where he found his son having been murdered and thrown at Panchpadwa Tongri. The reason for the occurrence is that the son of the informant – Mansukh Munda used to remain sick and in spite of being treated at various places, he was not getting well. It has been alleged that the informant and his family members were thinking of taking Mansukh Munda to Devas for treatment and this intention was disclosed to his brother Hadu Munda and on this issue there appeared a fissure in the relationship between the families of the informant and Hadu Munda. It has been alleged that the family of Hadu Munda left for Panchpadwa. The informant had sent his son to bring them back, but they did not return. On 28.01.2013, the son of the informant Markas Munda had died and there was friction between both the sides for practicing witchcraft which resulted in the occurrence. The informant could came to know that his son Markas Munda had gone to the house of Bauda Munda on 05.02.2013 and near the door stop, Arti Kumari had started assaulting him with fists, slaps and danda. It has been alleged that all the accused persons had dragged Markas Munda towards the jungle and assaulted him on his head with lathi and stones which resulted in his death. It has also been stated that his relation Baura Munda has seen the occurrence. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jobang P. S. Case No. 2 of 2013 was instituted under Section 302 & 201/34 of I.P.C. in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted leading to taking of cognizance and after the case was committed to the court of Sessions, charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 & 201/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial, 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

5. P.W. 1 – Boda Munda @ Bauda Munda has stated that the incident is of 6 months back. He had gone to Kisko to prepare his Aadhar Card and he returned back to his house from Kisko at about 8 PM. He has stated that while returning home, he has seen his son-in-law Markas Munda being assaulted with lathi and danda by 4-5 persons. He has further stated that after assaulting him, he was dragged towards the forest where he was hit by a big stone leading to his death. He has further stated that the persons involved are Birsa Munda @ Runka Munda, Bora Munda @ Suman Munda, Jama Munda @ Sushil Munda and Aarti Kumari @ Sukar Kumari. He has stated that thereafter on account of fear, he had gone to his residence. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that it was dark when the incident had taken place. He has further deposed that due to darkness, persons who were standing at a distance could not be recognized. He has also stated that he does not know as to when his son-in-l