The testimony of a witness must be trustworthy and free from major contradictions in order to convict the accused. The prosecution must prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts.

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 29.07.2015 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial Case No.45 of 2012, 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 and a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and 60 % of the fine deposited will go to the informant namely, Jatri Birhor, and all the sentences awarded to them shall run concurrently.

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-Jatri Birhor, wife of late Urha Birhor that on 17.10.2011 at about 10.00 O' Clock night, her husband, namely, Urha Birhor, (the deceased) after taking dinner was arguing with his cousin brother, namely, Tiru Birhor, (the appellant herein) outside of her house and in course of arguing, the matter was aggravated and at that time, she was in her courtyard. After hearing noise at her door, she came out and saw that the accused assaulted her husband from sharp side of tangi on his head, due to which her husband fell down and thereafter, accused assaulted her husband on his back and shoulder. Upon which, her husband sustained injury and blood started flowing from his head and as such, he died. Thereafter, she raised alarm and on raising alarm, nearby people came there but before their arrival, the accused along with tangi had fled away towards the forest.

4. She further alleged that without any reason and motive, the accused killed her husband by axe (tangi).

5. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Simdega P.S. Case No.126/2011 dated 18.10.2011 was registered against the accused person under Section 302 of the IPC and investigation was started.

6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused person, namely, Tiru Birhor under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused person was sent up for trial.

7. 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.

8. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 5 witnesses including one Court witness, i.e., P.W.1-Jatri Birhor, P.W.2-Ram Kishun Birhor, P.W.3-Dhurandar Rai, P.W.4-Rohir Birhor and C.W.1-Dr. Dayanand Saraswati.

9. 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, he has denied from the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent and found the charge levelled against the appellant proved.

10. Accordingly, the appellant has been found guilty as such convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2015 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2015, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

11. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under consideration before this Court:

“Whether the trial Court, while convicting the accused person, has committed any illegality or not?”

12. Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, 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 considered to be an eye witness but P.W.1 cannot be con