IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that eyewitness testimony, when corroborated by medical evidence, can be sufficient to uphold a conviction for murder, even in the presence of minor contradictions.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 28.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 464 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the informant is not a reliable witness as there are several contradiction in her statement. She on one occasion has stated that on raising alarm no one arrived at the place of occurrence whereas she has also stated that when the occurrence was taking place she never raised any alarm. The other contradiction the learned counsel for the appellant tries to put forth is regarding murder weapon. As per the FIR the informant has stated that the deceased was assaulted by stone on head and stomach whereas while deposing as PW6 she has stated that the deceased was assaulted by knife and after assaulting the deceased by knife, the appellant dragged him. This fact was narrated in the FIR. He further submits that all the other witnesses are hearsay witness and got the information from PW6 and admittedly they had not seen the occurrence. It is the further case of the prosecution that the murder weapon i.e. the knife has not been recovered and produced before the trial court. On this ground the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, thus he needs to be acquitted.

3. Counsel for the State submits that the entire evidence has to be considered in totality. PW6-the wife of the deceased is the eye witness and the fact that she was present at the time of occurrence and has seen the commission of murder by this appellant has been established. So far as discrepancy with regard to the murder weapon is concerned she submits that the same is a minor contradiction and should be weighed in the light of the fact that the deceased is a rustic lady and had lost her husband in front of her eyes. As per the prosecution, the nature of injury which has been narrated in the FIR corroborates with the medical evidence. Once the prosecution has proved the commission of the offence and the testimony of PW6 has not been demolished, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the instant case, after hearing the parties and after going through the evidence on record we find that the FIR is at the instance of PW6 Bigan Devi who is the wife of the deceased and is the informant in this case. She in the FIR has stated that the appellant happened to be elder brother-in-law who entered the house at 10:00 PM on 10.03.2012 when they were taking rest. This appellant who happens to be the elder brother-in-law of the informant came near their entrance and started abusing the deceased and others. On hearing this abuse the deceased came out then this appellant caught hold of him and started assaulting him. As a result of his assault, he fell down then he was dragged out of the house and with the help of a stone he assaulted near the ear of the deceased and also on his stomach. As a result of the said assault the intestine got protruded. She thereafter raised alarm when the villagers assembled, by then the accused fled from the place of occurrence. In the FIR, the reason for the assault has also been mentioned i.e. there is family dispute between the parties.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Angara P.S. Case No. 18 of 2012 was registered on 11.03.2012 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid section and this ap