The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to substantiate charges with credible evidence, and the potential for false implication due to enmity and other motives.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 31.05.2004 and order of sentence dated 01.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, FTC-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with S.T. No.261 of 2003, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.1321 of 2002, whereby and where under both the appellants Arvind Ram and Pradeep Ram were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 307/34 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants in order to give it to the victim Manoj Sao as compensation and in default of payment of fine, both the appellants were directed to serve the sentence of six months simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of fardbayan of the informant Shiv Prasad Sao (PW - 4), recorded by A.S.I., R.K. Sharma of Town P.S. at Sadar Hospital at 16.00 hours on 17.10.2002 is that-

On 17.10.2002 at about 1.30 PM, in the noon, Shiv Prasad Sao (the informant) and his son Manoj Sao were working in the field. The informant’s son went towards road, for giving accounts of the contributions collected (chanda) on the occasion of Durga Puja. Soon, thereafter, at about 1.45 P.M., the informant heard hulla and he saw towards road and found that accused Arvind Ram (Appellant no. 1), Pradip Ram (Appellant no. 2), Sudhir Ram and Dwarika Ram were assaulting his son with axe (tangi) and lathi. The prosecution case further reveals that Arvind Ram, Sudhir Ram were having axes in their hands and whereas, Pradip Ram and Dwarika Ram were having lathies. The informant along with other villagers reached at the place of occurrence and aforesaid accused persons ran away. The informant Shiv Prasad Sao with the help of villagers had taken his injured son (Manoj Sao) to Sadar hospital, Daltonganj and where his injured son was admitted. The fardbeyan recorded by Town Police Station was forwarded to Chainpur Police Station.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbayan, a formal FIR was drawn by the Chainpur police vide Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2002 dated 17.10.2002, registered under Sections u/s 342, 323, 324, 307/34 of IPC against four accused persons including these two appellants along with Dwarika Ram and Sudhir Ram and investigation of the case commenced. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted only against these two appellants and rest of the two accused persons Dwarika Ram and Sudhir Ram were absolved from the charges and final report was submitted against the said two persons and charge sheet was submitted against these two appellants. After submission of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed against these two appellants for offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and after conclusion of the trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.

4. Heard learned defence counsel Gautam Kumar appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Sweta Singh appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that the prosecution story of committing the offence of attempt to murder of the injured- victim PW – 5 Manoj Sao is concocted and against the facts on record and the learned trial court has grossly committed error in law as well as in appreciation of facts. The learned trial court has ignored the fact that there was no independent witness and it was admitted case of the prosecution that enmity was prevailing between them. The learned trial court also failed to consider that the I.O. in this case has not been examined and the accused appellants were debarred from their valuable right to bring the contradictions of the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, and therefore serious prejudice was caus