A conviction based solely on unreliable eyewitness testimony can be overturned, particularly when witness behavior raises doubts about the authenticity of their accounts.

JUDGMENT :

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

1. Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, learned amicus curiae for the appellants and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Spl. P.P.

2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06-06-1997 (sentence passed on 09- 06-1997) passed by Sri Ghanshyam Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 /201/34 IPC and have been sentenced to life for the conviction under Section 302 /34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the conviction recorded under Section 201 /34 IPC. They have also been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the conviction under Section 302 /34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Bhairo Mahto recorded on 04-09-1993 in which it has been stated that about 2 months back Lakhan Pandit of village Bisbaria had taken a loan of Rs. 200/- from the father of the informant on the assurance that the same shall be repaid by working in the farm of the father of the informant. However, Lakhan Pandit did not work for a single day in the farm at which, the father of the informant started demanding return of the money but Lakhan Pandit vacillated on such demand. On 03-09-1993, the father of the informant had left his house at 6:00PM by informing the wife of the informant that he is going to the house of Lakhan Pandit to demand his money. When the father of the informant did not return even at 8:00PM, the informant and his brother Gopal Mahato went with a torch to Bisbaria to the house of Lakhan Pandit. When they reached the said place, they saw in the light of the torch, their father Nunulal Mahato being surrounded by Lakhan Pandit, Jamadar Pandit, Kishan Pandit and Lakhi Pandit and they were armed with Lathi and Tangi. When the accused persons were abusing the father of the informant, they protested but the accused persons assaulted Nunulal Mahato, who fell down on the ground. When the informant and his brother tried to save their father, the accused persons chased them with Tangi as a result of which they fled away and on coming home, they disclosed the incident to Ganesh Mahto, Jagdish Mahato, Laxmi Mahto, Badri Mahato and others but they advised that it was night and it would not be feasible to go to another village. In the morning, when the informant and others were going to Bisbaria village, they found at village Kadai the dead body of Nunulal Mahato lying on the field.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jasidih P.S. Case No. 150/1993 was instituted for the offences under Section 302 /201/34 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 Sessions Case No. 38 of 1994. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC and 201/34 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Prakash Mahato has stated that on 03-09-1993 at 7:00-8:00PM, he was in his house when Bhairo Mahto came and disclosed that his father was assaulted by the accused persons and when he tried to intervene, he was also assaulted and he managed