The court distinguished between abetment and direct involvement in murder, emphasizing the reliability of injured witnesses' testimonies over others.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.260 of 1994, whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Sections 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and both have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Challenging the judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that no independent witness has been examined in this case and the witness who are examined are highly interested witness and related to the deceased. He further submitted that as it was dark at the time of occurrence, the witnesses could have not identified the appellants. The place of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that no plausible explanation was given regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. and sending the same to the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for acquittal.

3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is their case that the appellants have participated in the alleged commission of offence, thus, this appeal needs to be dismissed.

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) of the informant- Dhokhar Ram (P.W.-15). He stated that his son Mahabir Ram a member of Scheduled Caste was in love with Malti Kumari and both intended to marry each other and even after being cautioned by the informant to father of the girl, they continued their affair and on 23.05.1994, Malti Kumari escaped from the Village with Mahabir Ram and both married at Rajrappa Temple and started their conjugal life, concealing themselves. However, Puran Mahto father of Malti Kumari along with other villagers traced them. Panchayat was convened at village in the garden situated near the house of Feko Mahto at Village Hindegarha. The villagers who had gone to bring the couple back to the village returned to the village and reached the panchayat meeting on 31.05.1994 at about 9.00 P.M. where both the couples were being questioned about the kidnapping /abduction and thereafter Arun Mahto instigated the assembled people to commit murder of Mahabir Ram. On such instigation people of Mahto community attending the meeting started assaulting Mahabir Ram by means of lathi, fists and boulders and committed his murder. Harijan people who assembled there in the panchayati started fleeing away from there but the people of Mahto community caught hold of Ganesh Rabidas and Lakhan Rabidas and assaulted him. Thereafter some members of Mahto community entered in the Harijan locality to trace out the Harijans, but they hid themselves. The members of the Mahto community surrounded the Harijan basti thus, people of Harijan community could not come out and only on arrival of the police at the village, they came out and the informant got his statement recorded by the police.

5. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Mandu P.S. Case No.139 of 1994 was registered under Sections 341/342/323/325/ 448/302/34/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellants.

6. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellants pleaded not guilty, thus, charge was framed against appellant No.1 under Sections 302/109 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No.2 under Sections 147, 302, 323 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Further, both the appellants were also charged under Sections 3(1-X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

7. Altogether seventeen witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:-

P.W.-1, Ganesh Ram stated that there was love affair betwee