The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence and corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.1993 (sentence passed on 22.03.1993) passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda in connection with Sessions Case No.68 of 1988/26 of 1991, arising out of Meharma P.S. Case No.152 of 1987, corresponding to G.R. No.836 of 1987, holding the appellants, Shankar Paswan, Sudeen Paswan and Md. Fida Hussain @ Islam along-with Ramu Paswan and Rita Mohan Shukla guilty of the offences under Sections 302/34 & 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Mosai Paswan and voluntarily causing hurt to Chander Sah and thereby, sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Ramu Paswan and Rita Mohan Shukla were co-appellants but died during the pendency of this appeal, as such, this appeal stood abated against them.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant, Sokha Paswan, alleging therein that on the intervening night of 28/29.12.1987, his father Mosai Paswan, who was a chowkidar had gone to his duty and thereafter, did not return. On the next day between 6-7 A.M., Laxman Mandal told him that his father was murdered and his dead body was lying in village Alva Dhangarasi. The informant rushed there and saw his father lying in a pool of blood. There were several injuries on his head.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants on 02.03.1988, under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Shri S.P.N. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda, after cognizance, committed this case to the Court of Sessions on 07.06.1988, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellants under Sections 302/34 & 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 16.09.1992. The contents of the charge was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. Most. Modo (P.W.1) wife of the deceased, Lakho Devi (P.W.2) daughter of the deceased, Sumrit Devi (P.W.3) another daughter of the deceased, Ravindra Paswan (P.W.4) son-in-law of the deceased, Kedar Sah (P.W.5), Jagdish Mandal (P.W.6), Sukari Devi (P.W.7) another daughter of the deceased and Sita Ram Choudhary (P.W.8) are hearsay witnesses.

Chandra Sah (P.W.9) is the solitary eye witness. He has supported the prosecution case.

Sokha Paswan (P.W.10) is the informant of this case. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, Laxman Mandal told him that his father has been murdered. Chandra Sah also came and told him that appellants and co-convicts had committed murder of his father.

Gajodhar Nath Mishra (P.W.11) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the inquest report, which is Ext.1. He has proved the place of the occurrence, which is the paddy field at the distance of 60 yards from the village. He seized two blood stained boulders and blood stained mud from the place of occurrence. He has proved the seizure list, which is Ext. 4. He has proved the site map of the place of occurrence, which is Ext.5. He has further proved the injury report of Chandra Sah, which is marked as Ext.6 and the postmortem report which is Ext.7.

Dr. Vijay Kumar Bhagat (P.W.12) has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, Mosai Paswan. He has identified the injury report of Chandra Sah, which was already marked as Ext.6. He has further identified the postmortem report, which was already marked as Ext.7.

8. The statements