The court upheld the conviction of one appellant for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, while acquitting the other due to insufficient evidence linking him to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Per Ananda Sen, J.

These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 5th February, 2016 and order of sentence dated 10th February, 2016 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013, arising out of Chutia Police Station Case No.233 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.6186 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-convicts submitted that there is no material and evidence to convict these appellants. It is their contention that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.3 and P.W.12, who claim themselves to be the eye witness, are not trustworthy. Further, it has come in evidence that while these two witnesses reached the place of occurrence, the appellants fled away by jumping boundary wall of the railway station, thus, it cannot be said that these two witnesses are eye witnesses to the occurrence. All the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses, who were informed over telephone about the occurrence. They further contended that in his cross examination, P.W.3 had stated that persons gathered there had seen the occurrence, but no other witness has been examined by the prosecution who had witnessed the occurrence. They contended that the P.W.3 and P.W.12 who claim to be the eye witness to the occurrence, have not narrated the manner of assault. They also argued that though the place of occurrence is densely populated area, yet surprisingly, there is no eye witness, who could have seen the appellants assaulting the deceased. They contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that P.W. 3 and P.W.12 are eye witness to the occurrence and they have narrated the manner of occurrence without leaving any space for doubt. The defence has not brought any material to doubt the credibility of the eye witnesses. They further contended that the motive has also been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further the assault as narrated by the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. They further contended that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, thus the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.

4. The appellants have been charged and convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan dated 14.11.2012 at 21.15 Hrs. of the informant-Munar Ram, wherein it has been narrated that on that day at about 04.00 p.m. in the evening he opened his Khaini (tobacco) shop. At about 07.30 p.m. evening his uncle Balchand Ram, by parking his rickshaw on a side, came to his shop to take tobaco. At the same time, the appellants Santosh Ram and Shivlal Ram came there and started abusing and scuffling with the deceased Balchand Ram. When he tried to intervene, Santosh Ram also started scuffling with him to which the deceased intervened and thereafter Shivlal also started scuffling with them. In the meantime, appellant Santosh Ram took a Chamkatni Chura (a tool used for leather cutting) and stabbed the deceased twice in his stomach and also stabbed on his chest. Due to severe injury and bleeding, the deceased fell down. After assault, both the appellants fled from there. The informant along with others took the deceased by rickshaw to Guru Nanak Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. The informant further narrated the motive for killing to be an occurrence of scuffle an