IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 27th February, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2011 arising out of Kathikund Police Station Case No.08 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.236 of 2011, 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 a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the fardbeyan of the informant Deshai Dehari, recorded by Surendra Ram, Sub Inspector of Police, Kathi Kund Police Station on 28.02.2011, is that, on 27.02.2011 at about 04.00 p.m. in the evening Ravindra Dehari (appellant) pursuant to a quarrel with his wife, ran to kill his wife with an iron khukhri, but she escaped. Thereafter the appellant ran to kill his daughter Mangri Kumari. Seeing this, the deceased in order to save Mangli Kumari tried to catch hold of the appellant and tried to reason with him but in the meantime the appellant assaulted the deceased on her head with iron khukhri, which caused injury on her head and she sat on the floor and again the appellant attacked her with khukhri severing her head from the body and the deceased died. On hearing hue and cry the neighbours rushed and caught hold of the appellant and in course of the same they also sustained injuries.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Kathikund Police Station Case No.8 of 2011 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.11 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 was submitted against the appellant for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by order dated 21.04.2011 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 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Desai Dehari, the informant; P.W.2 Hopna Chunda Marandi, who is also a witness to the Inquest Report; P.W.3 Sonalal Dehari; P.W.4 Ramesh Dehari, who is a witness to the seizure list as well as inquest report; P.W.5 Dukhan Dehari, who is also a witness to the seizure list; P.W.6 Krishankant Dehari; P.W.7 Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased; P.W.8 Sundari Maharani; P.W.9 Rooplal Marandi; P.W.10 Kameshwar Singh, the second investigating officer of the case and P.W.11 Hawaldar Silvester Murmu.

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

The prosecution has also brought on record material exhibit, one iron Khukhari (Dab) alleged to have been used by the accused for committing murder of the deceased as Material Exhibit I; and blood stained earth as Material Exhibit II.

6. Upon conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

7. After hearing th