Circumstantial evidence must be corroborated with direct proof; a case with hostile witnesses and lack of motive cannot sustain a conviction for murder.

JUDGMENT :

R.Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2009 (sentence passed on 18.07.2009) by Shri Rabindra Nath Tiwari, Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.449 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 /34 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The Fardbeyan of Bhola Mahto was recorded on 18.09.1998 at 11.30 P.M in which it has been stated that on the same day at 3.30 P.M. he had sent his son to the market and he was going to cut grass in his field. When he had heard a commotion coming from the house of Aklu Mahto (appellant) the informant went towards the courtyard of Aklu Mahto and he had seen Aklu Mahto close the door. Along with the informant was Ghumesh Mahto. When he asked Aklu Mahto about the happenings, he disclosed that there was a black thief inside. The informant thereafter went to cut grass. The Police came at night and when the door of Aklu Mahto was opened, the informant saw his nephew Ramu Mahto lying dead in the kitchen. When the Police opened the door, two daughters of Aklu Mahto namely Sarita Kumari and Anita Devi were found sitting. The informant was of the belief that his nephew has been murdered by the daughters of Aklu Mahto with the assistance of some male. When the box of Ramu Mahto was opened, the photographs of Anita and Sarita and two love letters were recovered which indicated that Ramu had a love affair with both the sisters. It has been stated that Ramu Mahto used to frequent the house of Aklu Mahto for the last 3-4 years. About two years back the wife of Aklu Mahto, his daughter Anita Devi and Ramu Mahto had gone to Kera Manda (Chakradharpur) for performing puja.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Torpa P.S. Case No.24 of 1998 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C against Sarita Kumari and Anita Devi. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.449 of 1999. The case of the accused Sarita Kumari was separated since she was a juvenile. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 302 /34 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W. 1 Paresh Sao, P.W.2 Giridhari Mahto, P.W.3 Sohrai Mahto, P.W. 4 Ramu Mahto, P.W. 5 Rajeev Kumar Mahto and P.W.6 Jaleshwar Bagchee have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

7. P.W.7 Ranglal Mahto has stated about coming to know regarding the murder of Ramu Mahto in the evening.

8. P.W.8 Bhola Mahto is the informant who has stated that on 18.09.1998 at 3.30 P.M. after sending his son to the market he was going towards his field to cut grass when he heard some commotion in front of the house of Aklu Mahto. He went to the said place and found the door closed from inside. Aklu thereafter came out and put a lock on the door from outside. When he asked Aklu about the commotion, Aklu had replied that there was a black thief. When he was going back Gumesh Mahto had reached and both started cutting grass. He returned