Eyewitness testimony must be credible and reliable; an unconscious witness cannot provide valid evidence against an accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Shail Lakra, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.1999 (sentence passed on 09.09.1999) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 195 of 1997/106 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 /34 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Mangal Marandi recorded on 16.11.1996 in which it has been stated that on 15.11.1996 at 4:00P.M., he had gone to ask for his ox from his son Lakhiram, but he refused and, in the meantime, the other son of the informant, namely, Bablu Marandi (appellant) had also arrived at the scene. It has been stated that Lakhiram disclosed that since the informant had not given him the jewellery and woods, he will not return the ox. There was an altercation between the informant and Lakhiram Marandi which turned into an assault committed by Lakhiram with a lathi upon the informant and when the informant raised a cry of alarm, his wife Dhena Soren came, who reprimanded both the accused for assaulting their father. This enraged Lakhiram and Bablu Marandi who committed indiscriminate assault upon Dhena Soren and when the informant went to the rescue of his wife, he was also assaulted with lathi. Due to the commotion, several villagers had assembled. At around midnight, Dhena Soren died.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Boarijore P.S. case No. 73/96 was instituted under Section 307 /34 and 302/34 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 S.C. No. 195 of 1997/106 of 1998. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 /34 IPC and 307/34 IPC which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

P.W.1 Man Singh Marandi, P.W.2 Sonaram Hansda, P.W.3 Sanat Marandi, P.W.4 Talamai Marandi and P.W.5 Ram Hansda did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.6 Jarman Baski has stated that Mangal Marandi had narrated to the Officer-in-Charge in his presence that he had a quarrel with his sons and thereafter, they had assaulted him. He has identified his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had no knowledge about the occurrence except what had been disclosed by Mangal Marandi to the Officer-in-Charge.

P.W.7 Betka Marandi is the younger brother of both the accused who has stated that he came to know about the incident after he returned home from his in-laws’ place. His mother was unconscious and his father had disclosed that Lakhiram had assaulted his mother with lathi and he was also subjected to assault.His mother died in the same night.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his father was speaking slowly though he was unconscious.

P.W.8 Mangal Marandi is the informant who has stated that when he asked Lakhiram to give back his ox, Lakhiram instead gave him lathi blows. When his wife came to see him, she was assaulted with lathi by both the accused persons. He was unconscious as such, he could not see as