The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to carefully assess and evaluate witness testimonies, and the extension of the benefit of doubt in case of contradictions and inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mrs. Gouri Devi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2012 (sentence dated 01.06.2012) passed by Sri Ghanshyam Kumar Mallik, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2001(S), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for life.

3. A Fardbeyan of Indira Birua was recorded on 04.10.2000 at 9 a.m. in which she has stated that a day before she had come to Langra Hat with her husband and when both were returning back to their home in the evening they found Nedey Birua (appellant), Kiti Birua and Pradip Das standing with bows and arrows. On seeing her husband they started raining arrows and two of the arrows struck her husband on his stomach and left rib and he fell down. It has been alleged that when the husband of the informant fell down a third arrow was shot at his head. When she started raising an alarm, several persons including Janak Bage, Mihir Birua arrived at the scene at which the accused persons fled away. Her husband was carried by Janak Bage, Mihir Birua and others to the house of the village Munda Motilal Birua and kept in the courtyard. In spite of best efforts no vehicle could be arranged for transporting her husband to the hospital and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Manjhari P.S. Case No. 17/2000 was instituted against Nedey Birua, Kiti Birua and Pradip Das for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 30.07.2001. Charge was framed against the present appellant u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

One of the co-accused Kiti Birua was convicted vide order 17.11.2003. The present appellant had absconded, but was subsequently apprehended on 24.07.2009 and put to trial.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven (07) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Indira Birua is the informant and wife of the deceased who has stated that the incident is of 10 years back at about 4 p.m. when she was standing along with her husband in front of a pond near the market. She has stated that the contractors of the market had come and so had Nedey, Kiti and Pradip. They were armed with Bhujali, arrows and pistol. She has deposed that they had murdered her husband with Bhujali and arrow. One arrow was shot at the chest of her husband while a Bhujali blow was given on his head. The incident according to her was witnessed by Janak Bage. Several others had also seen the incident, but all are dead now. After being injured by an arrow her husband was taken for treatment on the next day and he died in the morning.

In her cross examination she has stated that all the three accused used to reside at Sai Tola. She has stated that Pradip had a Bhujali and Kiti had a pistol. There was no previous enmity between her husband and the three accused persons though subsequently she has stated that there was previous enmity. She has also deposed that the accused persons were quarreling with the Sundis and her husband was trying to pacify the situation. She has stated that Kiti had fired from the pistol while Pradip had assaulted on the head of her husband with a Bhujali. A bullet had struck on his back. She had told the Investigating Officer that the accused persons had accompanied the contractor Siram. She had also disclosed that the accused persons had pistol and Bhujuali in their possession. This witness has stated that her husband was taken away from the place of occur