The court emphasized the necessity for corroborative evidence in sustaining a criminal conviction, highlighting the unreliability of witness statements and inconsistencies therein.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, learned Spl. P.P.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.05.1997 (sentence passed on 29.05.1997) passed by Nirmalendu Kumar Kanth Niraj, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 140/1996 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 /34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Yashoda Devi recorded on 21.12.1995 in which it has been stated that she has four brothers and a sister and the marriage of the informant was solemnized with Prayag Mistri at Bhagalpur but about four years back, the husband of the informant became traceless and since then she is staying with her mother at Chugalkhar. It has been stated that the mother of the informant had transferred two and half kathas of land by a registered deed to the informant for constructing a house thereupon for which the brothers and sisters-in-law of the informant used to quarrel and assault her mother. At the present moment, all the brothers of the informant had gone to Kolkata for earning their livelihood. It has been alleged that today, i.e., 21.12.1995 at 10:00AM, all the four sisters-in-law of the informant had entered into the house of her mother and assaulted and ousted the informant from her room and after committing the murder of the mother of the informant, they went away from the house. On raising an alarm, some of the villagers had assembled and the Chowkidar was also informed about the incident.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Hirodih P.S. Case No. 58/95 was instituted for the offence punishable under Section 302 /34 IPC. On conclusion 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. 140/1996. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 /34 IPC 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 eight witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Madan Kumar Rai has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.2 Uday Rai has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.3 Anup Rout has stated that on 21.12.1995 at 10:00AM, he was digging out potatoes in the field when he heard a cry of alarm from Yashoda Devi at which he rushed to the door of Yashoda Devi where Yashoda Devi disclosed that her mother has been assaulted by her sisters-in-law. He had seen all the sisters-in-law of Yashoda Devi coming out from the room. When he went inside, he found Anita Devi dead with marks of injury on her body.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the land in which the house of Yashoda Devi is situated was given to Anita Devi by her father. The plot consists of 72 decimals, out of which 4-5 decimals were given by his father to Anita Devi. When he was conversing with Yashoda, there were other persons present. When he had gone to the house of Yashoda, the accused persons were also present. Anita was inside the house and so was Yashoda and it was Yashoda, who came out first followed by the accused persons.

P.W.4 Lekho Badhai has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been decla