The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and weak evidence or absence of corroboration undermines conviction in murder cases.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2017 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey No. 1, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2014, arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 91/2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- convict submitted that the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, thus the impugned judgment is not sustainable in eyes of law. He further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses who in fact have given different statements regarding weapons which were used in assaulting the deceased. Those statements have not been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submitted that the blood smeared seized weapons have not been produced before the Court, therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case against this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also submitted that it is alleged that the Investigating Officer seized two blood smeared weapons, but the said blood smeared weapons have not been examined by the FSL. It is his case that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, but in this case the prosecution has failed, thus the appellant needs to be acquitted. .

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the doctor has proved the injuries and the Investigating Officer has also proved the place of occurrence and on the basis of the confessional statement of accused, both weapons, used in this crime, i.e. dab and sabbal were recovered by the police, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against this appellant. He further submitted that P.W.5 (Shivadhan Marandi) and P.W. 8 (Mirkhu Murmu) have clearly deposed that the deceased was demanding his share of the compensation amount, given by the Government on acquisition of their land, from this appellant, who kept all the money, therefore there was serious dispute between the appellant and the deceased, for which, the offence was committed. The motive of the occurrence thus stands proved. He also stated that P.W. 10 (Mongla Marandi) has also clearly deposed that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased at 12:00 O' clock on the date of occurrence. He lastly submitted that there is no ground to acquit the appellant, thus he prayed that the judgment is fit to be upheld.

4. In this appeal, the appellant has been charged and convicted under Sections 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Chowkidar, namely, Pagan Marandi, recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Littipara Police Station on 29.09.2013 that he heard hue and cry at Manjhitola, where some quarrel took place between this appellant- Sonaram Marnadi and Motilal Marandi ( the deceased and full brother of this appellant) for money and this appellant killed him giving blows with Dab and Sabbal and run away. He stated that thereafter he went to the place and occurrence and saw cut injuries on neck and head of the deceased, caused with Dab and Sabbal and blood was oozing out and the deceased was lying dead. The villagers told that at Dumka -Sah