The testimony of injured witnesses is highly credible, and direct evidence can establish guilt without needing to prove motive.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. Case No.78 of 2010, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted in connection with S.C. Case No.78 of 2010, arising out of Maheshpur P.S. Case No.33 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.275 of 2010 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month under Section 341 IPC, R.I. for 6 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for 2 years under Section 324 of the IPC, R.I. for 7 years under Section 307 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and R.I. for life under Section 302 of the IPC, with fine of Rs.2,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged altercation has taken place in presence of several persons but no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. All the witnesses are related to each other, thus their testimony should be discarded. The statement of the informant is not to be believed as because the informant is the daughter of the deceased and since there was a dispute with her in-laws they all have been roped in this case. It is submitted that the medical evidence does not support the version of any of the alleged eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no motive to commit murder and the murder weapon was also not recovered and produced before the Court. On this basis, acquittal is sought for.

3. Learned APP opposes and submits that just because the witnesses are related to each other that does not mean that the prosecution case is false. The eye-witnesses have stated that this appellant and others have assaulted the deceased and committed her murder. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case and there are eye witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Thus, as per the State, this Appeal needs to be dismissed.

4. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the First Information Report lodged by the informant-Rashida Bibi, is that on 02.05.2010 at about 12:30 P.M., when she was at her matrimonial house, a scuffle was going on near her house. At that time, the informant was in her room when her mother-in-law came to her and told her to accompany them and participate in the scuffle, which she denied, upon which her in-laws i.e. husband (Shahjahan Seikh), father-in-law (House Seikh), mother-in-law (Anima Bibi), elder brother-in-law (Jiyaul Seikh), father-in-laws namely Abdul Wari and Abdul Lakhu Seikh, started beating her. She ran towards her paternal home which is near her matrimonial home, when her husband armed with knife came along with his family members running towards her. When she reached close to her house, her husband armed with knife, with an intention to kill her, started attacking her as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and started screaming. When her mother came out of her home and tried to save her, then her above named in-laws told her husband to kill the old lady, upon which her husband with the knife in his hand stabbed on the chest of her mother two times, as a result of which her mother fell down and succumbed to death. The informant hid herself in a nearby house. Thereafter all persons fled away from there. On the basis of the fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was lodged being Maheshpur P.S. Case No.33 of 2010 under Section 323, 341, 326, 307, 302 & 34 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant Shahjahan Seikh only and the investigation in respect of other accused persons named in the F.I.R. were kept pending.

5. After filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. Thereafter, the case was committed to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur, where charge was framed under Section 341, 323, 326, 307, 302 of