IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction in criminal cases must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on untrustworthy eyewitness testimony cannot sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2016 and Order of sentence dated 30.11.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2011, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for one year.

2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of informant Mostt. Chaity in which she has stated that she was maid servant of deceased S.K. Paul. On 27.02.2010 at about 4:00 a.m. she went to the house of the deceased S.K. Paul. At about 8:00 a.m. S.K. Paul, who was driver of Tower Wagon, left for duty. He returned from duty at about 4:00 p.m. and then again left for market at 5:00 p.m. He returned from market at around 6:30 p.m. He had brought meat from the market and told the informant to cook the meat. Thereafter, S.K. Paul was taking rest on folding-cot. At about 6.30 P.M. the informant came out from the kitchen with tea. She saw two persons were pressing S.K. Paul on the folding cot. She did not understood the mater and thought some friends might be putting colour due to Holi festival. She said them to have tea and then play Holi, then one of them came and thrown the tea and assaulted her with fist. Thereafter she saw the face of both persons and she identified them, one of them, was Upendra Paswan and the another one was Mohan Ghatwar (accused). Upendra Paswan kept her Master pressed and Mohan Ghatwar shot bullet in the stomach of her Master S.K. Paul and fled away from the house. She opened the back door and raised “hulla.” The people reached there and brought her Master to the Parwati Clinic Telaiya for treatment, where he died. It has been further alleged that as per her fardbeyan accused Mohan Singh Ghatwar and Upendra Paswan have committed the murder of S.K. Paul by shooting him.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Koderma (T) P.S. Case No. 79 of 2010 dated 27.02.2010 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused Upendra Paswan and Mohan Singh @ Mohan Singh Ghatwar was registered.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet on 18.11.2010 against the accused under sections 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. The cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 18.11.2010.

6. On 21.07.2011, the charge under sections 302/34 I.P.C was framed against the accused, namely, Mohan Singh Ghatwar, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced 07 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Asim Kumar Devnath, PW-2 Mostt, Chaity - Informant, PW-3 Nageshwar Prasad, PW-4 Binay Kumar Tiwari, PW-5 S.C. Jha: Investigating Officer, PW-6 Rajeev Ranjan: Officer-in-charge cum investigating Officer and PW-7 Dr. Awadesh Kumar, Medical Officer.

8. The prosecution has also adduced fardbeyan of informant as Ext. 1, Formal F.I.R. as Ext. 2, confessional statement of accused/appellant as Ext. 3 and Post-mortem report as Ext.-4.

9. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence.

Grounds on behalf of the Appellant

10. Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order of conviction:

(i) The conviction is based upon the contrary principle of the charge is to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

(ii) The sole testimony upon which the appellant has been convicted is of informant