The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to explain circumstances within their knowledge, especially when the deceased is found in their home.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2012 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2012 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Vaish, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in Session Trial No. 177 of 2011, arising out of Borio(J) P.S Case No. 60 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-convict submitted that none of the witnesses in this case are eye witnesses, rather all of them have been declared hostile. He further submitted that when all the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile, there was no material to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the Court witnesses i.e. C.W. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are also not eye witnesses rather are the hearsay witnesses. As per him, the appellant has been solely convicted on the basis of the statement of the Investigating Officer. Only on the basis of statement of the Investigating Officer, a person cannot be convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. The defence version that the deceased died after falling from a tree in course of collecting wood has not been believed by the Trial Court without any basis. It is his case that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, but in this case the prosecution has failed, thus the appellant needs to be acquitted.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that as per the FIR the witnesses have clearly stated that they had seen the appellant beating the deceased with stick and when the witnesses tried to intervene, they were also threatened. Further, as per the FIR, the witnesses have also stated that they have seen this appellant dragging the deceased in a room while beating her and she was also beaten inside the room as sound of cry was coming from the said room and the injuries found on the person of the deceased were numerous. There were injuries on the hand, wrist, palm, Leg, chest, throat, back, buttock etc. The murder weapon, which was wooden stick, was also recovered by the Investigating Officer and he produced the same in the Court. The above fact finds support from the statement of the prosecution witnesses also. The dead body was recovered from the house of the appellant, which suggests that except this appellant, no one can commit murder of the deceased. He further added that the appellant did not give any plausible explanation as to how the deceased died thus there is application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in this case also. It is his case that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, but the doubt in the mind of the Court to acquit the appellant should be reasonable. Unreasonable doubt cannot be ground to acquit the appellant by giving him any benefit. He also submitted that the defence version cannot be believed, as if a persons falls from a tree, there will be one or two injuries and not numerous injuries as found in this case. He lastly submitted that there is no ground to acquit the appellant, thus he prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence is fit to be upheld.

4. In this appeal, the appellant has been charged and convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, Doman Pahariya recorded on 7.4.2022 by the Officer Incharge of Borio(J) Police Station. It has been stated that on 6.4.2011 in the evening, the accused Madhan Pahariya started beating his wife in the courtyard of his house without any basis by a wooden stick. On hearing cry of the deceased, the informant along with other villagers assembled there and intervened, when the accused also threatened them. The accused, thereafter took his wife inside the r