IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction for murder requires reliable and corroborated evidence, particularly when based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness; contradictions and lack of corroboration can lead to the reversal of a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The above-named sole appellant has preferred this instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.04.1995 and Order of sentence dated 25.04.1995, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 116 of 1993, arising out of Kathikund P.S. Case No.29 of 1992 (G.R. Case No.681 of 1992) registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Muni Murmu by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution story as depicted in the F.I.R. (Exhibit-2) lodged by one Prabit Marandi (P.W.-6) stating inter alia that on 16.07.1992 in the morning, informant’s mother (since deceased) and his wife namely, Bahamuni Hansda (P.W.-5) had gone to their field for disposing cow dung. The informant was in his house and after some time, he heard the screaming of his wife that his mother has been assaulted then, he rushed towards the place of occurrence and arrived near the ridge of his field, then there he saw accused Hilar Marandi armed with tangi, Bodar Marandi (appellant) armed with Sabal, Bowa Marandi and Dhena Marandi were assaulting the mother of the informant with tangi and sabal lying down her on field. The informant also raised alarm then several villagers assembled and accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. The witness and wife of the informant brought out the injured mother of the informant from the field covered with mud and water and put her on the ridge of the field, but she died instantaneously. It is alleged that prior to one month of the occurrence accused persons were calling the mother of informant as ‘diaan’ and extended threatening to kill her, for which a panchayati was also convened in the village and matter was resolved, but the accused persons were not fully satisfied and used to threaten to kill the mother of the informant.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Kathikund P.S. Case No. 29/1992 was registered for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. No. 681/1992 and Sessions Case No. 116 of 1995.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Out of four accused persons, who were tried jointly in this case, only the appellant has been convicted and sentenced and other three accused persons have been acquitted after facing trial.

5. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant has been assailed on following grounds:-

(i) It is vehemently argued that the learned trial court has based its decision only on extraneous consideration and travelled beyond the weight of evidence available on record, as such, arrived at wrong conclusion.

(ii) Elucidating his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that admittedly P.W.-5 Bahamuni Hansda is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, but in her cross-examination, she has given serious jolt to the prosecution story. She has stated that her mother-in-law has alone gone to field for disposing the cow dung. Thereafter, about half an hour, she also went to the field and saw accused persons were fleeing armed with lethal weapon.

(iii) It is also admitted fact that there was single blow injury on the head of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance, which was found fatal and may also be caused due to fall of the said old lady on the ridge of the field.

(iv) All other witnesses of facts are hearsay from P.W.-5, including the informant.

(v) The prosecution story as projected by witnesses during trial is almost improbable inasmuch as if four persons variously armed with lethal weapons surrounded and indiscriminately assaulted a lady, there would be multif