The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt in murder cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2017 passed by Shri Diwakar Pandey, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, in connection with S.T. No. 525/2013, arising out of Sonahatu (Rahe) P.S. Case No. 20/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1229/2013, holding the appellant Sohan Bhokta @ Sohan Bhogta guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one year.

3. The case of the prosecution was instituted on the basis of 'fardbeyan' of the informant, Sanmati Devi, alleging therein that on 11.03.2013 at about 05:00 P.M., her husband Madan Bhokta along with his cousin Sohan Bhokta @ Sohan Bhogta had gone to castrate a male calf in the house of Benga Munda @ Chaitan Munda, situated at Village Kokradih. There after her husband did not return. On the next day, i.e. on 12.03.2013 his dead body was found lying on the metallic road near Kokradih village. His head was crushed by a stone. Suspicion was raised upon the appellant Sohan Bhokta @ Sohan Bhogta that due to land dispute, he had committed the murder of the deceased Madan Bhokta.

4. After investigation, Police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.05.2013. After cognizance, Sri S.B. Ojha learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, committed the case to the court of sessions on 07.06.2013, as it was exclusively triable by sessions court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 09.07.2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

Banshidhar Bhokta P.W.-1, Bharat Bhokta P.W.-2, Rameshwar Bhogta P.W.-5, Kartik Mahto P.W.-6, Kala Chand Bhokta P.W.-7 are hearsay witnesses, but aforesaid witnesses had seen the dead body of the deceased and have stated that head of the deceased was crushed.

Chaitan Munda P.W.-3 has supported the fact that both appellant and the deceased had come to his house for castrating a male calf and they returned together at about 8 A.M. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list, which is exhibit-1.

Hira Lal Mahto (P.W.-4) is the witness of seizure of blood stained stone and shirt, he has proved his signature of the seizure lists, which are exhibit-2 series. Julen Shishir Murmu (P.W.-8) is the investigating officer of this case, he has proved the fardbeyan which is exhibit-3 and he also proved the formal F.I.R., which is exhibit-4, he has further proved the inquest report which is exhibit-5. He had seized the blood stained stone and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence, he has proved the seizure list, which is exhibit-6, he has also proved the seizure list relating to the recovery of blood stained shirt from the house of the appellant, which was marked as Exhibit-6/1.

Dr. Manoj Kumar Kora (P.W.9) had performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Madan Bhokta, he has proved the postmortem report, which is exhibit-7.

Letter forwarding the blood stained stone and blood stained Shirt for forensic examination to SFSL, Ranchi is exhibit -8. SFSL report is exhibit-9.

7. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

8. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. It was further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against