The credibility and consistency of witness testimonies, the need for corroborating evidence, and the significance of examining the Investigating Officer to establish the exact place of occurrence are crucial in proving a case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2010 and the order of sentence dated 08.07.2010 respectively, passed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Pakur, in Sessions Case No.104 of 2008 whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default, thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as narrated in the fardbeyan of P.W.6-Sushila Murmu, is that on 04.03.2008, at about 11 a.m., Baburjee Tudu (the gotia of the informant) along with his sons namely Sudhir Tudu, Sailen Tudu, Ramesh Tudu and the wife and daughter of Ramesh Tudu and Babudhan Tudu were fishing in the pond belonging to the informant. The informant and her husband Shibcharan Hembram and bhaisur Kaleshwar Hembrom arrived at the pond. Her husband told the accused persons that the pond was in joint possession of both the parties and asked the accused persons to desist from fishing, whereupon the accused assaulted her husband and bhaisur with arrow and lathi. Due to the assault her husband and bhaisur fell down in the paddy field of Manial Kisku. It is alleged that on the instigation of Raimon Murmu, all the accused persons including Lalji Murmu, Baburam Marandi and Pandu Hansda assaulted Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram with lathi and killed them by crushing their heads with boulders.

3. On information, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.6 and accordingly Pakuria P.S. Case No.13 of 2008 was registered.

4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) was filed against the accused persons and cognizance was taken, whereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions. The sessions court read over and explained the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W.1-Binda Murmu, P.W.2-Santoi Soren and P.W.6-Sushila Murmu are the eye witnesses. P.W.3-Raska Hembram, P.W.4-Naresh Hembram and P.W.5-Basanti Hembram are hearsay witnesses. P.W.6-Sushila Murmu is the informant and wife of deceased Shibcharan Hembram, P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of deceased Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram. He has proved the post-mortem reports, i.e.-Ext.1 and 1/1 respectively.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 IPC. The defence was of complete denial.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court found the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them by the judgment impugned herein.

7. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that P.W.1-Binda Murmu has deposed that at around 11 a.m., on the day of occurrence, he had brought his buffalo to the pond and, at that time, the accused persons were fishing in the pond, whereafter Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram came there and objected to the fishing by the accused persons, due to which altercation and scuffle took place between them and the accused persons pushed and dragged Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram to the field of Boka Kora and assaulted and killed them with boulders.

In cross-examination he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence the fight had already started between the parties. Subsequently, in para-6, he has contradicted his earlier statement and stated that h