IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 10th September, 2014 and 12th September, 2014 respectively passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No.09 of 2010 arising out of Littipara Police Station Case No.40 of 2009 (G.R. No.573 of 2009), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.25,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the fardbeyan of the informant Marsila Marandi, recorded by the Officer-in-Charge, Littipara Police Station on 01.10.2009, is that, Sonamuni, aged 14 years (deceased), daughter of Savitri Marandi (elder sister of the informant) was residing with the informant for last about one year and was studying in Class VII at Littipara Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya. Since about three months, she fell in love with the appellant Shivdhan Murmu and during this the deceased and the appellant used to go out of their house during night. On 30.09.2009 also in the evening the deceased and the appellant left their home and on 01.10.2009 in the morning at about 05.00 a.m. the deceased returned to her home and informed the informant that the appellant has immensely assaulted her due to which she is suffering severely. Thereafter she had gone to the western side of Bagwan Pond and fell there and immediately died. The informant claimed that the appellant has beaten the deceased severely due to which she died.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Littipara Police Station Case No.40 of 2009 was registered for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as against the appellant, being the sole accused.

4. After investigation, chargesheet being Charge Sheet No.42 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009 was submitted against the appellant for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by order dated 14.12.2009 and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, had examined altogether 12 (twelve) prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Manjhi Kisku, P.W.2 Munnu Tudu, P.W.3 Bale Biti Murmu, P.W.4 Nakul Hansda, P.W.5 Ranjeet Murmu, P.W.6 Ramshil Marandi, P.W.7 Shishu Murmu, P.W.8 Sonalal Hansda, P.W.9 Girish Soren, P.W.10 Marshila Marandi, P.W.11 Teslal Ram and P.W.12 Dr. Shyam Prasad Bhagat.

In addition to examining the above witnesses, the prosecution also got the following documents exhibited: -

6. P.W.1 Manjhi Kisku has stated that the occurrence is of 8-9 months ago. It was morning 5-6 a.m., he was in his fields, when he saw that the deceased was being beaten by the appellant with slaps and kicks. On hue and cry Bale Biti Murmu, Nakul Hansda, Ranjit Murmu came there and Shishu Murmu also came there. Deceased was being administered with something in a bottle by Nakul Hansda, Balebiti Murmu, Ranjit Murmu and Shishi Murmu. Thereafter they fled away. Thereafter the deceased died near the pond. In cross examination he stated that Chuttar Kisku is his younger brother. He further stated that a case is pending in the Court of Commissioner between Chuttar Kisku and Balebiti Murmu for the post of Pradhan. Balebiti Murmu was not appointed by the SDO. The order passe