Convictions can be based on a sole eyewitness's testimony if credible; however, significant contradictions can undermine the prosecution's case, particularly regarding common intention under Section 34 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These appeals have been filed under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C against the judgment of conviction dated 14.07.2003 and order of sentence dated 17.07.2003, passed by the learned Session Judge, Simdega, in Session Trial No.143 of 1993 arising out of Kurdeg PS Case No.35 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. Case No.428 of 1992 registered under Sections302/324/323/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been directed to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. At the outset it needs to refer herein that the appellant no.1, namely, Kuwar Lakra and the appellant no. 3, namely, Patras Lakra, in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1018 of 2003 have died during pendency of these criminal appeals.

4. In this regard a report of the Mukhiya of village-Chadrimunda dated17.09.2024 has been forwarded by the then Officer-in-charge of Kurdeg PS to the Registry of this Court vide his letter dated 25.09.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1018 of 2003 may be abated so far as the appellant no.1, namely, Kuwar Lakra and the appellant no. 3, namely, Patras Lakra are concerned.

6. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the Cr. Appeal (DB)No.1018 of 2003 qua the appellant no.1, namely, Kuwar Lakra and the appellant no. 3, namely, Patras Lakra stands abated.

Factual Matrix

7. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as :-

8. The prosecution story as per FIR, in short, is that about three days prior to the alleged occurrence a goat-kid belonging to the informant got traceless and later the said goat-kid was discovered in the house of the accused Kuwar Lakra. Thereafter the informant lifted the said goat-kid and brought the same to her house.

9. On 26.12.92 all accused persons came to the house of the informant and they asked the deceased to return the goat-kid which was lifted by the informant from their house. On not acceding the said demand, the accused persons forcibly took the deceased in front of their house. The accused persons laid down deceased on the ground and thereafter the accused Kuwar Lakra went to his house and came being armed with an axe and he thereafter on the instigation of the other accused persons started giving axe blows on the person of the deceased. All blows were hit on head or near head. When the informant tried to save the life of her husband she was assaulted with axe by the accused Kuwar Lakra and the accused Patras Lakra caused assault on the person of the informant by means of Lathi.

10. The informant screamed for help but no one could reach because of no other habitants there. The deceased succumbed to injury on spot and the accused persons thereafter fled away.

11. On the same day the police reached to the place of occurrence on getting infor