The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the testimony of injured witnesses is given significant weight in murder cases.

JUDGMENT :

PER ANANDA SEN, J.

This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 27.07.2002 in Sessions Trial Case No. 169 of 2000 whereby and whereunder learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat convicted the appellants under Sections 324/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for three years under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is at the behest of Shakuntala Devi who is none but the wife of the deceased. She stated that they returned from Maithan. On 20.11.1999 at about 10 a.m the informant Shakuntala Devi along with her husband was present in the courtyard. Two planks of their door were missing. Her father-in-law asked them to keep quite. The planks of the door were taken by the sons of Kameshwar Nayak (who happened to be her elder brother-in-law) namely, Bhagawandas Nayak and Ramdas Nayak. As they were refusing to return the same, exchange of words took place. Then Ramdas Nayak and Bhagawandas Nayak came out with tangi and gave 2-3 blows on the head of Shakuntala Devi and chased Premchand Nayak and these appellants Ramdas Nayak and Bhagawandas Nayak gave several tangi (axe) blows on the deceased and Kameshwar Nayak also assaulted with lathi till the deceased died. Then they returned to their house.

3. At the instance of Shakuntala Devi FIR was registered being Peterwar PS Case No. 133 of 1999 under sections 324/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is Exhibit-5.

4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/324/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal.

5. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that because of enmity between two family, these appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The conviction by no stretch of imagination can be under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as there were evidences that the parties were quarrelling amongst each other. As per the learned counsel for the appellants, the FIR is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C as the police reached the place of occurrence after getting anonymous information. Said information should have been treated to be the first information in this case. Thus the statement of the informant is not the first version. The statement of PW1 is doubtful and PW6 is an interested witness being the wife of the deceased, thus their statement should not be given much weightage. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the father-in-law of the informant had stated that the planks of the door have been kept by the appellants but neither those were recovered from the possession of the appellants nor were produced in the Court to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. PW6 has categorically stated that there was jealousy amongst both the families. If the statement of PW6 is analyzed properly it will be clear that there are contradiction in her statement. No independent witness has been examined in this case which gives a fatal blow to the prosecution case. The investigating officer did not collect the blood stained earth, wearing apparels nor sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Even the murder weapon was not produced before the Court which makes the case suspicious. The defence witnesses falsifies the case of the prosecution but their evidence has not been considered in proper manner. The case of the appellant no. 3 stands on different footing but he also has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On these grounds he prays for acquittal of the appellants.

7. The learned counsel for the State submi