The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 and assault under Section 324, ruling that credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated 27^th July, 2015 and Order of Sentence dated 28^th July, 2015 passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no materials to convict this appellant in this case. He submits that none of the witnesses have seen the occurrence and there are no eye witness to the occurrence. He submits that the prosecution has also failed to establish the motive of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased. He argues that the motive which has been projected by the prosecution that the deceased and his family members were pressurizing the appellant for Bidai of their daughter cannot be accepted as a motive behind the occurrence, inasmuch as no case of torture was ever lodged earlier as against the appellant. He further submits that there are major contradictions amongst the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that on overall assessment of the materials on record, it transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant finding the guilt of the appellant to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He submits that the P.W.7, who is the main witness in this case being the informant, has narrated the manner of occurrence in a very descriptive manner. She has stated that she was sleeping with the deceased in the same room when at night the appellant entered the room and stabbed in the chest of the deceased with the knife and when she tried to catch him along with P.W.1, they were also injured. All the other witnesses, who were present in home, i.e., the place of occurrence, have corroborated the prosecution case. He submits that the prosecution has also proved the motive as almost all the prosecution witnesses including the informant, her brother, her son and her daughter have stated that the deceased used to tell the appellant to take his family with him and due to this the appellant has killed the deceased. He further submits that the investigating officer has deposed in detail about the various aspects of investigation and materials collected by him, which led him to file chargesheet in this case. From the evidence of the investigating officer, no latches or lapses can be found which would go to benefit the appellant. The medical evidence of the doctors also corroborate the evidence of ocular witnesses inasmuch as the nature of injuries and the cause of death as opined by the doctor matches with the evidence of ocular witnesses. Thus, he submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence need no interference by this Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State and have also gone through the records and the entire evidence.

5. Prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Mohibini Khatoon, recorded on 01.10.2011 at 09.45 a.m. She stated that at about 02.00 a.m. at night, when all the family members of the informant were sleeping. Her husband was sleeping in another room. She heard scream of her husband “Bachao Bachao”. On hearing such screaming she and her broth