The credibility of eyewitness testimonies, especially from witnesses with a relationship to the deceased, and the appreciation of evidence considering the socio-economic and educational background of the witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, sole appellant Tilu Mahto has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 17.09.1994 and order of sentence dated 19.09.1994 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1992, arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 03 of 1992 dated 01.01.1992, G.R. No.19 of 1992, whereby the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Jagdish Munda got his statement recorded before the police on 02.01.1992 stating that on 01.01.1992 his brother Sanichar Munda had gone to Karma Kiari near CCL Office where he met the appellant. The appellant asked for his due money from his brother on which there was some exchange of words but after a while the matter subsided and at about 10.00 hours daytime, they both went to Khira Bera Basti and took wine and thereafter returned to the hotel of the appellant. In the hotel, they got eggs prepared and they along with one unknown person sat together in the nearby nursery of the jungle for taking food. The informant further stated that his villagers Raimani, Jaimani, Sumitra Kumari, Sanju, Fulmani, etc. were picking wood in the jungle. They saw that the appellant and another person took Sanichar Munda (deceased) in the mid of the jungle and started assaulting him and cut his neck and abdomen by Farsa. The deceased fell on the earth. The said girls came to their village and told the villagers that appellant Tilu Mahto and other unknown person had cut the neck and abdomen of the deceased by Farsa. Thereupon, the informant and other villagers went to the jungle and saw that neck and abdomen of Sanichar Munda were cut and he had died. In the morning they informed the police and the F.I.R. was registered accordingly. The informant alleged that the occurrence took place due to monetary transactions and he did not know anything more.

On the basis of the above fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. was registered against the appellant and one unknown person, however, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 28.09.1992 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.W. 2 Jagdish Munda is the informant of this case. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Jaimani Kumari, P.W. 3 Raimani both are nieces of the deceased. P.W. 4 Sanju, P.W.5 Fulmani, P.W. 6 Sumitra Kumari are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 Lalan Lal is the formal witness being witness to the seizure list Annexure-1. P.W.8 Lalkeshwar Mahto has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. P.W.10 Dr. Lala Sailesh Kumar Sinha has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 Madhusudan Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution has also relied upon several exhibits, like the First Information Report, Inquest Report, Post mortem report etc. to prove the case of the prosecution.

The defence, on the other hand, has not examined any witness on its behalf.

Basing on the statement of the eyewitnesses as supported by the statement of the Doctor, the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that one Charka Munda, Chowkidar of the village had reported that a dead body was lying in the jungle. On the basis of such information, a station diary entry was made and then he proceeded to the place of occurrence. It is submitted that neither the said Charka Munda was examined as a witness of the prosecution nor t