The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, emphasizing the importance of trustworthy evidence and the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :

1. The instant appeal, filed under Sections 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2016 and order of sentence dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial Case No.577 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo imprisonment for three months.

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, which reads as under:

3. As per the fardbeyan of the informant-Etwari Ageriya, recorded on 02.09.2011 by the Sub Inspector, S.K. Pathak of Padma O.P., Barhi P.S. alleged that on 02.09.2011, when the informant was coming from his house and reached at four-mile base Camp, he saw the truck stopping on the National Highway No.33 and heard alarm of a driver. The nearby people gathered there and saw that one person having knife in his hand was assaulting the driver. The person was caught hold by the people present there who on enquiry, disclosed his name as Badam Singh, the appellant herein.

4. Thereafter, the driver fell down behind the seat and was found dead and blood was oozing out from his left ribs and the knife was taken away from the appellant. The time of occurrence was after 9’ O clock. The informant has also told the Police Officials in his statement that Badam Singh on being asked informed that the deceased driver Mathura Prasad was the uncle (fufa) of Badam Singh, the appellant herein. The deceased had gone to Bhubneshwar with Truck No. UP 78 BP 4499 to deliver scooter.

5. On the way, scuffle took place and on suspicion, Badam Singh stabbed Mathura Prasad with knife in his ribs and the deceased Mathura Prasad fell on the seat, thereafter, Badam Singh strangulated the driver (deceased) who succumbed to the injuries.

6. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No.251/2011 dated 02.09.2011, corresponding to G.R. No.2362 of 2011 was registered against the accused person, appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and investigation was started.

7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused person, namely, Badam Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused person and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused person, who had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 4 witnesses i.e., P.W.1-Etwari Ageriya (Informant), P.W.2-Dr. Anwar Imam, P.W.3-Rajdeo Pandey and P.W.4-Shiv Kumar Pathak (Investigating Officer).

10. The trial Court, after concluding the evidence of prosecution, recorded the statement of the accused person under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which, accused had denied from the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent.

11. However, the learned trial court after perusal of record found the charge levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly, the appellant has been found guilty as such convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2016 and order of sentence dated 14.12.2016, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

12. Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence suffers from infirmity on the following grounds:

(I) The learned trial Court has based the conviction on the basis of the testimony of P.W.1 who has been claimed themselves to