The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2015 (sentence passed on 2.09.2015) passed by Shri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 04 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Lakhi Pad Bhakat recorded on 05.10.2012 wherein it has been stated that at around 1.30 P.M. his father had left the house for the house of Sharad Pramanik for making payment of the dues for purchasing chicken. It has been alleged that after 10-15 minutes Shankar Pramanik had raised an alarm that Sukhram Bhakat (appellant) has committed the murder of Suchan at which he, his mother Kavita and several persons came out of their house and found Suchan Bhakat lying dead with his head severed from the body. The reason for the occurrence is on account of a dispute with respect to partition of property.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Mango (M.G.M.) P.S. Case No.484 of 2012 was instituted under Section 302 I.P.C against Sukhram Bhakat. 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 S.T. No.04 of 2013. Charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W. 1 Kavita Bhakat has stated that the incident had occurred on 05.10.2012 at 1.30 P.M. Her husband had gone to Upar Toli in the chicken shop of Sharad Pramanik and she had also accompanied her husband. She has stated that Sukhram Bhakat had brought a chopper from his house and assaulted her husband on the neck with the said Chopper. The assault was committed due to previous enmity.

In cross-examination she has deposed that she was present at the place of occurrence when the incident had occurred. She does not know the reason for the enmity. She had given her statement to the Police depicting herself as an eye-witness.

7. P.W.2 Shankar Pramanik has stated that on 5.10.2012 at 1.30 P.M. he was in his house having lunch when he heard a cry of alarm. At this he came outside and found that the head of Suchan has been severed from his body and Sukhram was standing with a chopper. There were marks of blood on the chopper as well as on the clothes of Sukhram. He out of fear went back to his house, closed the door and fled away from the back side.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not witnessed anybody assaulting Suchan. He had come out of his house on hearing the cry of alarm and he had found Suchan lying dead.

8. P.W. 3 Niranjan Mahto has stated that on 5.10.2012 he was called by Devendra Bhakat over phone and when he went to the place of occurrence, he had found the dead body lying on the floor. He has identified his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.1. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

9. P.W.4 Sharad Pramanik had not supported the case of the prosecution and was also declared hostile by the prosecution.

10. P.W. 5 Niranjan Bhakat has stated that about 1 - 1 and ½ years back he had come to know that the murder of Suchan Bhakat has been committed in front of the shop of Sharad Pramanik. He does not know about the dispute between both the sides.

In cross-examination he has deposed that his statement was not recorded by