The court emphasized evaluating the quality of evidence, especially from a sole eyewitness, deferring the death sentence due to mitigating factors.

ORDER :

Rongon. Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Ms. Abha Verma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2018 (sentence passed on 30.11.2018) passed by Sri Ram Bachan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 216/2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences u/s 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to death along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for life for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the I.P.C. and in default in payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one year.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Raja Ram Mahakur, in which, it has been stated that the informant is a permanent resident of village Khatpal and at the present moment he is staying at Panchwati Nagar in Sonari. It has been alleged that on 06.07.2017 at 2:00 A.M. he had received an information in his mobile that an incident had occurred in his house. When on such information, he reached his house the villagers had disclosed that his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur (appellant) has committed the murder of his father Gurucharan Mahakur, mother Vimla Mahakur and sister Aalochana Mahakur. His younger brother Rajesh Mahakur also suffered injuries and he is being treated at the hospital. It has been alleged that Sudarshan Mahakur by threatening the villagers and by brandishing a bhujali had fled away towards Bhagaband.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Dumaria P.S. Case No. 08/2017 was instituted u/s 302/307 of the IPC against the sole accused. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted u/s 302/307 of the IPC and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 216/2018. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302 and 307 of the IPC, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W.1 (Anil Patar) has stated that the incident is of the previous year on the 6^th and he was sleeping in the house when he heard the cry of alarm coming from the house of Rajesh Mahakur. When he and the others reached the house of Rajesh Mahakur, they met Rajesh who gave information about his parents and sister who have been assaulted by Sudarshan Mahakur. Rajesh also had injuries upon his person. When they had reached the house of Rajesh, they found all the three persons dead. Rajesh was sent to the hospital. He has stated that Sudarshan Mahakur had fled away and at the time of fleeing away had issued threats that anyone informing the Police would be done to death.

In cross-examination, he has stated that all his family members had rushed to the place of occurrence. When he had reached the place of occurrence, he found Rajesh Mahakur conversing with Champa Mahakur. He does not know the reason for the occurrence. When he had reached the place of occurrence, the accused had already fled away. The area is under Dumaria P.S., which is known for its extremists’ activities. 7. P.W.2 (Parshuram Mahakur) has stated that the incident is of 6^th July of the previous year.He was in his house and he had come out of his house at around 1:30-2:00 A.M. for easing himself when he heard some commotion and a