The court emphasized that conviction requires definitive evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and where inconsistencies exist, the accused must be afforded the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Above named appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. Case No. 82 of 1993 dated 29/30.01.1997, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 34 2, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and rest four accused persons who were tried jointly in the same trial have been acquitted extending benefit of doubt.

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is that on 18.12.1991 at about 06.00 P.M. one Kedar Oraon (deceased) had gone to his sasural, in the same village, while he was returning to his home and reached in front of the house of Chamari Orain, the accused persons namely, Krishna Oraon, Jawara Oraon, Hira Sao, Babu Lal Sao and Bitu Sao all surrounded and caught hold of him. All the accused persons brought Kedar Oraon to their house and brutally assaulted him on head, chest, leg and arm by hockey stick and due to assault he became unconscious. It is alleged that hearing hulla raised by Kedar Oraon, his son-in-law Tiju Oraon, (P.W.4), Fagua Oraon(P.W.6) and several other villagers reached there and have seen the occurrence. The injured was brought to his house and in the next day morning moved to hospital for treatment. In the course of treatment, the said Kedar died in the hospital where police also arrived and recorded the fardbeyan of informant Suna Oraon (P.W. 1) at Sadar Hospital Gumla. Accordingly, FIR was registered for the offences under Sections147, 342, 323 and 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which was converted into 302 IPC after death of the deceased.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against altogether six accused persons including present appellants, who have faced trial and out of six accused persons only the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 /34 and 342/ 34 IPC and sentenced R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE however no separate sentence was passed u/s 342/34 IPC.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vishnupad Singh for appellants has placed following points of arguments indicating innocence of the appellants.

(i) There is no eye witness of the occurrence. Although eleven witnesses have been examined to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons but none of them have seen the occurrence. The presence and perpetration of the appellants has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

(ii) The main witness examined by prosecution is P.W. 4, Tiju Oraon, who happens to be brother-in-law of deceased (real brother of wife of the deceased). P.W. 1 Suna Oraon is also brother-in-law of P.W. 4.

(iii) The evidence of P.W. 4 categorically reveals incident, however he has not attributed any specific role against the appellants and in what manner the appellants have participated in the alleged crime and also failed to describe as to what type of weapon they were bearing.

(iv) On the basis of same evidence four accused persons of this case have been acquitted extending benefit of doubt and there is no material on record showing that the present appellants together have committed the murder of the deceased. As such, conviction and sentence of the appellants is absolutely not warranted under law.

(v) The FIR was lodged including the offence under Section 147 IPC showing presence of unlawful assembly but for the conviction of only present appellants, the learned trial court has invoked Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE establishing their joint liability without any positive evid