The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the charge for the commission of an offense beyond all reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence, corroboration, and the principle of accepting the view in favor of the accused if two views are possible.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.06.1993 and Order of sentence dated 28.06.1993, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Godda, in Sessions Case No.12 of 1993/6 of 1993, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It requires to refer herein that the Appellant Nos. 1 and 6, namely, Gahnu Mahto and Radhika Mahto respectively, have been reported dead and, as such, the instant criminal appeal on behalf of the Appellant Nos. 1 and 6 stands abated, as would appear from order dated 11.03.2019 passed in the proceeding of the instant appeal. Therefore, the appeal is being pursued on behalf of Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, namely, Vipin Bihari Mahto, Bhim Prasad Mahto, Arjune Prasad Mahto, Lakhiram Mahto and Ram Prasad Mahto.

3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Bhukhal Mahto, father of the deceased, given before O/C Thakur Gangati, Subodh Kumar Jaiswal (P.W.-14) on 24.10.1991 at about 00:30 Hrs. (12:30 A.M. at night), wherein he has stated that on 23.10.1991 at about 06:30 p.m. accused Gahanu Mahto, Vipin Bihari Mahto, Bheem Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Lakhi Ram Mahto, Radhika Mahto and Ram Prasad Mahto had injured his youngest son Upendra Mahto badly by assaulting with sharp cutting weapon in the eastern Bahiyar of village Dhankaul.

It has further been stated that at about one hour before the occurrence, his son Upendra had gone out to see off Purohit Harihar Pandey up to Banskoula Bandh. At about 7:00 p.m. there was rumour in the village that Upendra has been murdered. When the informant came to the village, Thakur Besara (P.W.-3), Birbal Mahto (P.W.-1) and Sanichar Mahto (Not examined) told him that after seeing Lakhi Pooja at about 6:30 p.m., when they were coming back home through eastern Bahiyar they heard the cry of “save save” upon which all of them ran towards the direction of sound and saw all the above named accused persons fleeing away. Out of them, accused Gahanu Mahto was holding Kudal and Vipin Mahto was holding Khanti. They chased the accused persons and raised alarm but accused persons succeeded in escaping. Thereafter, above named three persons came back to place of occurrence where they found Upendra dead in injured condition in paddy field. By that time, many villagers had assembled there. On being informed, the informant along with other village men, went to the place of occurrence and found his son Upendra lying dead in paddy field and several bleeding injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon were over his head. Upendra’s dhoti, accused Gahanu’s tin (used to water the plant) and a red colour woolen shawl were found in the nearby area of site of occurrence. It has also been stated that there was a land dispute with accused Gahanu Mahto and Radhika Mahto prior to occurrence and accused persons had given threat of dire consequences several times and that the because of this the accused persons had killed his son.

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Meherma (Thakur Gangati) P.S. Case No.147/1991 dated 24.10.1991, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons Gahanu Mahto, Vipin Bihari Mahto, Bheem Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Lakhi Ram Mahto, Radhika Mahto and Ram Prasad Mahto and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons’ pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, t