The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Sections 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2012 arising out of Kisko P.S. Case No. 84 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 635 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the said offence along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo imprisonment for three months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one months.

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the FIR, reads as under:

On 9.12.2011, Tabrej Khan, the informant, received telephonic information at about 7:00 pm from his Fufi from Hisri village that Rushed Khan was shot near house by someone. The informant rushed his house and inquired from family members and came to know that the deceased left home in the evening to meet with his friend Mehboob Hazam. While he was returning on foot three persons riding on red motorcycle have committed his murder by firing in front of house one Mir Khujla. They have committed murder after returning from the house of one Jailu Khan and fled away toward village Hisri. The informant did not know who have committed murder of his brother as he was done to death by firing from close range on his mouth.

In the course of investigation, the name of the accused came to the fore, a confessional statement was recorded by the police and in lieu of the confessional statement, the weapon was recovered by the police, the charge sheet was submitted and he was put on trial.

Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the learned trial court after considering the materials available on record the testimonies of the witnesses, convicted the present appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act.

Ground on behalf of the appellant:

3. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the same is based upon the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 said to be eye witnesses but if their testimonies will be considered, it would be evident that they cannot be said to be eye witnesses.

(ii) P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 disclosed in their testimonies that the appellant came to their resident and took tea which suggested that the P.W.-1 was very much knowing the appellant but even then the FIR was lodged against unknown. Hence, the very reliability of the prosecution version is suspicious.

(iii) The same is the case with P.W.-2 who happens to be wife of the deceased who has disclosed that she has seen the commission of crime but if the testimony of P.W.-2 will be taken into consideration, more particularly cross-examination at para-11, it has been deposed that she came to know about the murder of her husband in course of investigation. But, in the examination-in-chief she had deposed that she had seen the accused Adil and Karia Khan fleeing away from the place of occurrence. In the cross examination at para-11 when the P.W.-2 deposed that she came to know about the involvement of Adil and Karia Kha, the appellant herein, in course of investigation. Then, she cannot be said to be eye witness and her testimony cannot be said to be trustworthy.

(iv) P.W.-7 who is the informant is also not an eye witness rather he came to know about the occurrence over telephone and when he reached at the place of occurrence then he found that his brother, the deceased, was killed. He has been informed by his mother, sister and the w