The court upheld a conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimonies, affirming that the familiarity of rural witnesses with the accused overcame visibility doubts.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr.Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for informant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.04.1997 (sentence passed on 21.04.1997) passed by Shri R.P. Verma, learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the appellant No. 1 has further been convicted u/s 324 INDIAN PENAL CODE and both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction u/s 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE whereas the appellant No. 1 has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the conviction u/s 324 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Jaldhar Passi recorded on 02.12.1995 in which it has been alleged that on 20.12.1995, the father of the informant, namely, Bindi Pasi @ Binod Pasi after arranging the paddy was returning home at 10 p.m. and as soon as he reached near his house, Suresh Pasi, Chhaku Pasi and Naresh Pasi who were hiding started committing assault upon the father of the informant with a sickle. When the father of the informant raised an alarm, the informant and his uncle Kailash rushed to save him at which Suresh Pasi assaulted the informant with a sickle and in trying to save himself, the informant suffered cut injury on his fingers. The informant in order to save himself fled away while his uncle was pelted with stones by the women folk and he also managed to flee away. On hearing the commotion, Anandi Pasi, Nandu Pasi, Tikhu Pasi and others had assembled and had seen the occurrence and had also seen the accused persons fleeing away. The father of the informant was brought home, where he succumbed to his injuries. The reason for the murder of the father of the informant was alleged to be land dispute.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 137/1995 was instituted. On conclusion 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 Trial No.119 of 1996. Charge was framed against both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 302/ 34 of the I.P.C. and additionally charge was framed against the appellant No. 1 u/s 307 of the I.P.C which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Ghutri Devi has stated that the incident is of eight months back at about 10 p.m. and she was standing near the door along with her son Jaldhar waiting for her husband who had gone to the Khalihan. When her husband was returning Chhaku, Naresh and Suresh surrounded him near the shop of Babulal. Her husband raised an alarm at which she and her son rushed to the said place where they saw Chhaku catching hold of her husband while Naresh gave a blow on the chest with a sickle. When her son Jaldhar ran, Suresh struck him with a sickle which led to an injury on his finger. Her husband was brought to the door of her house. She has stated that Kailash had also run to save her husband at which some females started pelting stones and bricks at him. She had identified the accused in the electric light. She has stated that before the Doctor came, her husba