The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon without corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Per Ananda Sen, J. Today this appeal was listed for consideration of bail plea of the appellant after suspending the sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued the entire case on merits. He has taken this Court through the First Information Report, in details and also through the evidence of all the witnesses and also the documents, which have been exhibited. He submits that from the evidence on record and from the materials no case against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He argues that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, thus, he be released on bail.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant. He also argues the entire appeal on merit while opposing bail.

4. Considering the arguments of the appellant and the State, wherein they have argued each and every point and taken us through all the evidence, we feel that the entire appeal can be heard finally at this stage. Further, this appeal has already been admitted for final hearing and the Trial Court Record is already with us and both the State and the Appellant have submitted that they are well equipped with all the documents including the depositions and other materials and they have already assisted this Court and nothing more to be argued on the merit in the main appeal also.

5. Considering the aforesaid fact, we have taken up this appeal for final hearing and thus, we are proceeding accordingly.

6. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 24th July, 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of making payment of fine, the appellant has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Though the informant while deposing in Court claims that she is the eye witness, but if her statement is read with her Fardbayan, it would be clear that she has developed her story and posed herself as an eye witness, which actually she was not at the time of occurrence. The statement of the informant to the effect that she is an eye witness and has seen the assault is not to be believed. It has been further argued that as per the First Information Report, there was one eye witness namely Dutami Bhengra, who had narrated the entire fact of assault to the informant, surprisingly, this eye witness has not been examined during trial of this case as a witness, which is fatal for the prosecution case. It was necessary to produce the witness, who had seen the occurrence, through whom, informant had derived knowledge about the assault. Non-production of the said person as a witness is fatal for the prosecution. He further argues that if the testimony of this P.W.3 on the point of assault is not believed, then, there is no material against this appellant to convict him. Mere recovery of a weapon, even if the same is the murder weapon, on the confessional statement of the appellant, cannot lead to conviction. There has to be some corroborating evidence, which is missing in the instant case. On these grounds, the appellant prays for acquittal.

8. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the informant is an eye witness as she has stated in her deposition before the Court that she had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with axe. Since there is nothing to disbelieve this witness, there is no doubt that conviction can be sustained on the basis of testimony of this sole eye witness. He further submits that the appellant has confessed and on his po