The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and eyewitness testimony can suffice even without recovery of the murder weapon.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Sections 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 302 IPC and other sentence for the other offence.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that beyond the weight of the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant. He further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant, thus the involvement of the appellant is easily doubted. He also submitted that the witnesses are hearsay and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also argued that the deposition of the witnesses have not been weighted properly and one will feel that same is full of contradictions. He also argued that non-recovery of weapon, which was used in murder of the deceased is fatal for the prosecution. It is also surprising, as per the witnesses, the appellant was assaulting the deceased and those witnesses were present there, but none came forward to save the deceased, which suggests that none of the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence. The defence had further taken a plea that there was delay in lodging the FIR, which is unexplained and is also fatal for the prosecution. He lastly submitted that in absence of independent witnesses, the appellant cannot be convicted.

3. Counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He submitted that the prosecution story is corroborated by the witnesses and also by the medical evidence. He further submitted that the weapon was a sharp cutting weapon, which was used for committing the murder of the deceased. He also argued that considering the nature of evidence, which is direct and as the defence could not shake those evidences, the appellant has been correctly convicted.

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the wife of the deceased. She stated that on 28.2.2015 at about 8 O'clock at night, Shyamdeo Singh was sitting in his house near the door when this appellant came with axe in his hand and inflicted the blow on the head of the deceased. Her husband Shyamdeo Singh instantly fell down then the informant started raising alarm along with her son Om Prakash Kumar Singh. The villagers rushed to the place of occurrence and took the deceased to Hariharganj Hospital for his treatment from where after medical aid he was referred for proper treatment to higher institution. The deceased was taken to Dehri but seeing the condition, he was referred to Varanashi for treatment on 1.2.2015, but in course of treatment on 3.3.2015, he died.

The police was informed. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted and the dead body was sent on 5.3.2015 to the village-Damwa. Thereafter the informant lodged this case at Hariharganj Police Station. The reason of the occurrence was that this appellant was abusing her husband in filthy languages, which the deceased objected, but the appellant inflicted axe blow on the head of the deceased, resulting in his death.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, the FIR was registered under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against this appellant and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against him for the aforesaid section.

6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether twelve witnesses, who are as follows:-