The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence for conviction, finding significant contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of physical evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellants' guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 883 of 2012 and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 653 of 2012.

2. Since both 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 10.05.2012 (sentence passed on 14.05.2012) passed by Sri Shrikant Roy, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 172/2007 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /149 IPC and have also been fined Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence under Section 148 IPC has been passed. The appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, if the fine amount is not deposited.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Dinesh Marandi recorded on 25.04.2007, in which it has been stated that in the morning, the informant had gone along with his father to Kanhaipur. It has been alleged that at 8:00P.M., when they were returning near a pond at village Murgadanga, they were surrounded by Hopna Marandi, Mota Marandi, Aaresh Marandi, Chunda Marandi, Sripati Marandi, Ishwar Marandi, Chhoto Murmu, Stephen Marandi and Daniel Marandi and they started assaulting the father of the informant. The informant had fled away from another route and informed the villagers about the incident. It has been alleged that after some time the accused persons had brought the father of the informant to Kichadhab which is in the periphery of the village of the informant and assaulted him there also. The informant had raised an alarm, but none of the villagers had come to the rescue of the father of the informant due to fear. After committing the assault, the accused persons fled away towards Murgadanga. When the accused persons had left, the informant along with some villagers had come to the place where the father of the informant was lying unconscious with several injuries on his person. The informant and others had taken away his father to the hospital. The reason for the occurrence is a previous land dispute.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 71/2007 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 379 IPC. 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 Sessions Case No. 172/2007. The charge was framed against the accused under Section 148, 149, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302, 379 and 341 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

P.W.1 Jankilal Hembram has stated that the incident is of seven months back and he had gone to Murga Tola in the house of his nephew Tunkai Hembram. On hearing a commotion, he had gone near the pond where several persons had assembled. He had seen Suban Marandi being assaulted by 11 accused persons with lathis. All the accused persons were variously armed with bhala, lathi, bow and arrow, knife and sword. The accused persons had dragged Suban Marandi to Kichadhab and had committed assault upon him. After committing assault, the accused persons had left the place of occurrence. After the accused persons had left, he, Subodh Tudu, Somai Tudu and others went near Suban Marandi where he was found in an unconscious state with several injuries on his person. The incident occurred on account of a previous land dispute between the accused person and the deceased Suban.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was