The prosecution must provide consistent and corroborative evidence; significant discrepancies in witness accounts result in reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.1998 (sentence passed on 09.06.1998) passed by Shri Birendra Singh, Learned First Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 188/1996, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and has been sentenced to R.I. for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Mariam Guria recorded on 11.10.1995 in which it has been stated that on 10.10.1995 at about 6 p.m., the informant was collecting leaves beneath the jackfruit tree situated in front of her house when Somra Guria (appellant) and Suleman Guria came and dragged her to her house and asked about the whereabouts of her father-in-law. It has been alleged that the accused persons entered into the courtyard, caught hold of the father-in-law of the informant and assaulted him with Mungra and Lathi. The reason for the occurrence is that the wife of Somra Guria had given birth to a child two months back and in course of delivery she died. The accused blamed the father-in-law of the informant for the death as he practiced exorcism.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Torpa P.S. Case No. 68 of 1995 was instituted under Sections 302 / 34 I.P.C. 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. 188 of 1996. Charge was framed under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C against the accused persons which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W. 1 Soma Munda has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

6. P.W. 2 Lalgi Guria did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

7. P.W. 3 Mariam Guria is the informant who has stated that on 10.10.1995 it was dusk and she was accumulating leaves below the jackfruit tree situated near her house. In the meantime, Somra came and caught hold of her hand. There was another person with Somra whom she could not recognize. Somra had a Mungra in his hand while the other person did not carry any weapon. Somra wanted to know the whereabouts of her father-in- law and while saying so, he had dragged her inside her house and started assaulting her father-in-law with the Mungra. Somra had thereafter dragged her father-in-law to the courtyard where he was once again assaulted with Mungra leading to his death. Before dragging out her father-in-law, Somra had also dragged out her mother-in-law. When her father-in-law was being dragged out, she and the others had raised a cry of alarm but nobody had come as all the persons residing nearby had either gone to the jungle or had gone to graze cattle. When the villagers and her husband had returned, she had disclosed to them the manner of occurrence and the assailants who had taken part in the assault. She has stated that her niece Dumki Gudiya is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. Her father-in-law was murdered as the wife of Somra had died during childbirth and exorcism was done by her father- in-law at the time of childbirth. She has proved her signature in the Fardbayan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. She has accepted the fact that she had