The conviction cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against judgment of conviction dated 28.11.1998 and the order of sentence dated 30.11.1998 passed by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial Case No. 143 of 1997/192 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellants, above-named, have been convicted under sections 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo RI for life under section 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that one of the appellants- co-convict, namely, Pradeep Mahto, had died during the pendency of the appeal. In this regard, a photo copy of the death certificate of Pradeep Kumar Mahto dated 06.05.2021 issued under the signature of Registrar (Birth & Death) Gram panchayat, Pandu Bathan has been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. Let the same be taken on record. In view of the above, the present criminal appeal qua the appellant, namely, Pradeep Mahto stands abated.

Factual Matrix

3. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the fardbayan by Sarita Devi, the informant, reads as under:

The prosecution case was instituted on the fardbayan of Sarita Devi (PW-10) recorded on 10.01.1997 at 12: 30 A.M. at night, at her house, who alleged that her husband was doing measurement of oil in the shop of Amar Tekriwal and was residing in his godown. Some time, he used to come to house in the night when there was no oil vehicle. On that day at 6 P.M., he came from hatia and in the night at 9:30 P.M., she slept with her husband alongwith her small child. Informant further stated that at about 10.30 P.M., in the night, one man pulled her chadar (odhana) and she woke-up and another man lit the torch and after seeing her husband, he told to kill him. He assaulted her husband with a small stick, then her husband woke-up and asked as to who he was. At this, another person who was dark skinned and was wearing full pant, fired bullet on the chest of her husband as a result her husband came out in the court-yard and fell down.

It is further alleged that the other person who was flashing torch light was wearing white pyajama and was wrapped in shawal and was dark skinned. The informant raised halla and the said three persons fled away. Neighbours came and took out her husband from the house and were taking him on a thela to police station and hospital, but her husband died.

In the fardbayan, informant further stated that her husband were four brothers and they have eight bigha of land in total and their share of land was being seen by Sita Mahto, who is the elder brother of her deceased husband. In the month of Jeth they had gone to demand their share, but he refused. The informant expressed that she is unable to say as to who and why killed her husband. She further stated that she can identify the persons because she had seen them in the light of torch and lantern.

4. On the basis of this fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being Godda Town P.S. Case No.7/97 dated 10.01.1997 was registered against three unknown persons under sections 452/302/34 of IPC.

5. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellants for the offences under sections 452/302/34 IPC and section 27 ARMS ACT . Cognizance of the