The court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal jurisprudence, requiring reliable and corroborated evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Sankalp Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 700 of 2002, Mr. Sameer Saurabh learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants in Criminal , Appeal (DB) No. 771 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 257 of 2003 and Mr. Tarun Kumar as well as Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P. and Spl. P.P. for the respondents respectively.

2. Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2002 passed by Sri P.M. Lal, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (FTC), Ranchi in S.T. No. 572 of 2000 and S.T. No. 650 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 700 of 2002 has been convicted for the offence u/s 302/120B of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life while the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 771 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 257 of 2003 have been convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the conviction u/s 302 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the conviction u/s 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sk. Sayeed, in which, it has been stated that the son of the informant namely, Sk. Amanat worked as a salesman in Kapil Medical and he used to go out for his duty at 9:00 A.M. and return at 10:00 P.M. It has been alleged that today i.e. on 12.11.1999 the informant at around 8:45 P.M. was in his house along with his family members when he heard a sound of firing coming from outside, at which, the informant and his family members rushed outside where they found Sk. Amanat lying on the ground in a pool of blood and two boys fleeing away who were chased but could not be apprehended. It has been alleged that after giving information to the Police Station the informant had taken his son to RMCH where the Doctors declared him dead. The son of the informant always used to remain in the company of the owner of Kapil Medical, Rajesh Modak and the younger brother of the owner of Kanchan Studio, Manna. About 15-20 days back there was a quarrel with Rakesh and Rajesh Lohra and they had issued threats and it was suspected that these two persons had hatched a conspiracy and committed the murder of the son of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations Kanke P.S. Case No. 55 of 1999 was instituted u/s 302/120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against Rajesh Tirkey @ Rajesh Ram Tirkey, Rakesh Mahto and Jaideep Banerjee @ Kapil and cognizance was taken. Before commitment Rakesh Mahto escaped from custody and his case was split up. Later on, Rakesh Mahto was apprehended and his case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 650 of 2000. The case of the rest accused persons was already committed and registered as S.T. No. 572 of 2000. The accused Jaideep Banerjee @ Kapil and Rajesh Tirkey were charged u/s 302/120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act while the accused Rakesh Mahto was separately charged u/s 302/120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

6. P.W.1 (Anil Kumar Singh) has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

7. P.W.2 (Md. Meraj), P.W.3 (Moyin Ansari) and P.W.4 (Md. Zilani Qureshi) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

8. P.W.5 (Md. Hafiz Ansari) has stated that he had rush