IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence without corroborative proof and a clear motive, as established by the principles governing circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2016 and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo SI for six months.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Jug Singh Sidhu had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 09.07.2012 at 04:00 O’clock in the evening his mother was at house, at the same time, the appellant, namely, Sur Singh Sidhu told that her bull died and, on this pretext, he took his mother from the house and, thereafter, he committed her murder by throttling her. Hearing the screaming of the mother, the informant also reached to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant fleeing away after committing murder of his mother. In the meantime, the persons of the village also attracted there and dead body of the mother was brought to the house. There being no means of transport, the information was not given at the police station. In the morning, informant went to the Munda Jee and informed him in regard to the occurrence, who gave information to the police station concerned. There was land dispute between the appellant and his mother, on account of the same, the murder was committed. On this written information, Tonto P.S. Case No.15 of 2012 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant, namely, Sur Singh Sidhu.

3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, subsequently, transferred the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

4. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa framed the charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.

5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether eight witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Jug Singh Sidhu (informant); P.W.-2, Rabindra Nath Laguri; P.W.-3, Kerse Aalda; P.W.-4, Shandi Sidhu; P.W.-5, Harish Laguri, P.W.-6, Budhan Singh Laguri; P.W.-7, S.I., Ashok Ram and; P.W.-8, Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda and in documentary evidence the prosecution has adduced Exhibit-1, signature on the fardbeyan; Exhibit-1/1, signature of Rabindra Nath Laguri on fardbeyan; Exhibit-2, signature of Rabindra Nath Laguri on inquest report; Exhibit 1/3, signature of Ashok Ram on fardbeyan; Exhibit 1/4, endorsement of police office on the fardbeyan and; Exhibit-2/1, signature of Ashok Ram on post mortem report.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent and no defence evidence was adduced.

7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2016 and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2016 holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2016 and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2016, th