The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the Investigating Officer on the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2003 and order of sentence dated 14.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chatra in Sessions Trial Case No. 221 of 1996 which arose out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 06 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellants Md. Israil Mian @ Md. Israil Ansari and Md. Abbas Ansari @ Abbas Mian have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 448/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of the fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year each u/s 323 of IPC and u/s 448 of IPC. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Story

2. The prosecution arose in the wake of statement dated 16.2.1995 of Quresha Khatoon wife of Maksud Mian resident of Kasiyadih P.S. Tandwa District Chatra before the Officer In-charge Tandwa Police Station which is as under:

The informant Quresha Khatoon stated that on the last night (15.02.1995) when she had retired to bed with her two minor daughters after taking dinner at about 10-11 p.m. at night, her agnates (gotias), namely, Israil Mian and Abbas Mian (both appellants) entered into her house and caught her hands. With the help of a lamp, she had seen that Abbas Mian was holding a knife whereas Israil Mian was holding an Iron rod. By the time, the informant asked the above persons as to why they had entered into her house, she was pinned down on the ground by the Israil Mian whereas Abbas Mian started inflicting blows with Chura, upon the informant and as a result of which she sustained injuries on her nose, forehead, head and on back on the body. The Informant was badly injured and at the time of assault, she was begging for mercy and simultaneously, she was raising hullah. The assailants above named fled away. Thereafter, the informant closed her house from inside, went to the roof and started raising alarm. Many persons from the neighborhood came and bandaged her wounds.

The cause of occurrence has been stated in the statement of the informant that the mother-in-law of the informant was mentally sick, her husband was residing at Kolkata where he was working as a labourer. Before, the marriage of the informant, the appellants as they belong to the same family, used to cultivate the lands which fell in the share of the informant’s husband. But, after the marriage of the informant, she had taken her share and started cultivating, but, the appellants on the other hand wanted to eliminate the informant by committing her murder so that they could grab the share of the informant.

It is alleged that for the aforesaid reasons, the appellants had committed the above offence by illegally entering into her house. Since, the informant could not find any communication to go to the Police Station in the same night, as such, on the following morning i.e. on 16.02.1995, the matter could be reported with the police.

3. A case was registered on the basis of aforesaid statement of the informant (PW-5) and a formal FIR was drawn and the said informant PW-5 was sent to the hospital for her treatment and the injury report has also been submitted which is Ext.3.

4. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was submitted against both the appellants for the offences punishable u/s 326, 307, 448 /34 IPC and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. The learned trial court after framing the charges against both the appellants u/s 307/448 r/w section 34 of IPC on 01.05.1998 conducted the trial and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge.

6. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learn