The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific and credible evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused, as well as the need for a holistic consideration of evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter.

2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 03.09.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.09.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dumka (S.P.) in S.C. Case No.163 of 1996, arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No.53 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. Case No.832 of 1995, whereby and where under, these three surviving appellants Lakhi Ram Tudu, Khuriya Marandi and Gopal Tudu along with two other appellants(who died during the pending of this appeal namely, Sufal Tudu and Dhena Marandi @Manjhi Marandi) were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 304 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 341 of IPC, and both the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

3. The short facts of the present case is that the informant Baha Tudu wife of late Chhoman Marandi gave her fardbayan on 02.11.1995 at 8.30 am, which is recorded by S.I. Ajay Kumar Chaurasiya Shikaripara P.S., at Chiristian Hospital, Mohulpahari in presence of her dewar Pubilal Marandi and her father Gupin Tudu near the dead body of her husband and alleged that about 16 days earlier (16.10.1995) her Cousin father-in-law Dhena Marandi and one Som Marandi quarrelled with each other at 12 noon and in the meantime her husband came and intervened in the quarrel. Then the said Dhena Marandi pushed down husband of the informant and rushed to the house of Lakhi Ram Tudu. Then her husband chased Dhena Marandi and thereafter all the accused persons namely Lakhi Ram Tudu, Gopal Tudu, Sufal Tudu, Khuria Marandi, surrounded the husband of the informant and assaulted him with Chappu (wooden shaft used for boating) lathi and legs out of which the left side of the head of the husband of the informant was fractured and he fell down. Then the informant and her relatives brought the injured Chhoman Marandi to Christian hospital, Mohulpahari where he was going under treatment but during treatment he died in the night of 01.11.1995.

4. Thereafter the police on the basis of the fardbayan registered Shikaripara P.S. Case No.53 of 1995, the police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet u/s 341, 304/34 of IPC against all the accusedappellants and then the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, found all the five accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and Section 341/149 of IPC and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.

5. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority from the Legal Services Panel Lawyer and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Niki Sinha, appearing on behalf of the State.

6. It appears from the record that out of five appellants, appellant No.2 Sufal Tudu and appellant No.5 Dhena Marandi @ Manjhi Marandi have died and their names have been deleted from the cause title of memo of appeal vide order dated 20.10.2021 and this appeal is abated against both the deceased appellants by this Court as none of the near relatives come forward on behalf of the deceased appellants to continue with this appeal and the remaining three appellants have been renumbered as Appellant No.1 Lakhi Ram Tudu, appellant No.2 Khuriya Marandi and appellant No.3 Gopal Tudu, against whom, this appeal was heard.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants

7. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submitted that the learned trial court failed to consider that out of nine witnesses, seven of them are hearsay witnesses and