IMPORTANT POINT
Eyewitness identification deemed unreliable due to lack of corroboration and unnatural conduct, leading to the reversal of conviction.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent-State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.1998 (sentence passed on 07.03.1998) passed by Shri R.N. Verma, learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 166/1997/G.R. No. 576/1996, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Budhram Pahan, in which, it has been stated that on 21.09.1996 at about 8:30 P.M. his son Pandu Pahan went to the paddy field to irrigate the land by taking water from a nearby pond. The informant after sometime proceeded for the same place and when he reached near the field he saw in moonlight the named accused persons variously armed chasing his son in order to kill him. The informant had hid himself behind the bush and had witnessed the occurrence. It has been alleged that when his son reached the field of Devi Dayal, the accused persons intercepted him and committed assault on him after which they fled away. When the informant went to the field of Devi Dayal he found his son lying dead with multiple injuries on his person. The reason for the occurrence is that 15 days back his son was threatened by the accused persons on account of a land dispute.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Arki P.S. Case No. 43/1996 was instituted against nine accused persons u/s 302/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 166/1997. Charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.

5. PW-1 (Budhram Pahan) is the informant and father of the deceased Pandu Pahan who has stated that the incident is of a year back when his son took a spade and went to water his field from the tank of Konta Munda. When he after sometime went to the field he found his son being chased by the accused persons who were armed with Farsa, Tangi and Dauli. All the accused persons surrounded his son and killed him. He has stated that he had seen the incident of assault clearly as it was a moonlit night. He has also stated that about 15 days back his son was threatened by the accused persons when he was sowing watermelon in his field. When the accused persons had left he had reached the place of occurrence and found his son dead. He had returned back to his house and informed about the incident to the villagers as well as his brothers and nephews. He thereafter went to the Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his son had informed him about the threat given by the accused persons about fifteen days back. No case was instituted regarding such threat. The land in question belongs to him. His house is situated at a distance of 500 yards from the Pond. He has deposed that he was watching the occurrence from behind the bushes. When he had reached near the field he had seen his son running and the accused persons were chasing him from a distance of 4-5 hands. He had identified all the accused persons from their back while they were chasing his son. The sky was clear and it was the 9th day of full moon. The bush where he had hid himself was at a distance of 10 yards from the place of occurrence.

6. PW-2 (Soma Pahan) has stated that it was around 9:00 P.M. and he was in his house when the informant came and disclosed that the accused persons have committed the murder of his son when his son was irrigating his field. He had also stated about witnessing the incident. He after getti