The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of concrete evidence can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2022 and order of sentence dated 08.04.2022 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar No.-III, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and in default in payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months. He has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-for the offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act and in default in payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The fardbeyan of Narayan Mahato was recorded on 03.11.2014, in which it has been stated that his son Prakash Mahato and his son's friend Gopal Chandra Mahato who both were J.V.M. Workers had left on a motorcycle on 01.11.2014 for Kharsawan to join in a rally organized on the eve of joining of J.M.M by Krishna Gagrai. In the evening, both returned back and on the next day i.e. 02.11.2014 they left for village Sindhukopa to join a meeting regarding construction of a culvert. From there they were to go to the house of Paltan Mahato but they did not return. On 03.11.2014, on an information received from the villagers, he had gone to village Begnadih where he found the dead body of his son and his son's friend lying on the ground and the motorcycle was also found.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Seraikella P.S. Case No. 110 of 2014 was instituted against unknown persons for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Sukhdeo Singh Sardar (appellant) and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2015. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Luv Kishore Mahato) and P.W.2 (Sri Ram Mahato) did not support the case of the prosecution and were accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.

6. P.W.3 (Narayan Mahato) is the informant who has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He has deposed that the incident had occurred more than a year back. His son had told him that there is a meeting at Sindhukopa with respect to construction of a culvert and thereafter he was to meet Paltan Mahato and he had left on a motorcycle with Gopal Mahato. After the meeting Prakash Mahato had gone to the house of Paltan Mahato. He has stated that Prakash Mahato and Gopal Mahato did not return even in the night and repeated calls on mobile evoked no response. In the morning it came to light that two dead bodies were lying near Jharidih Nala. On reaching the said place some blood was found as the bodies were already taken away by the Police. He went to the postmortem house to identify the dead bodies of his son Prakash Mahato and Gopal Mahato.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not gone through the fardbeyan before putting his signature on the same. He has stated that the information about the bodies was given to him by Janmenjay Mahato.

7. P.W.4 (Malindra Nath Mahato) has identified his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. He has deposed that the incident is of 02.11.2014. On 01.11.2014, his son Gopal Chandra Mahato had gone to Kharsawan. He had called in the evening to inform that he will not return in the night. On 02.11.201