The court held that convictions must be supported by credible evidence, highlighting issues in witness identification and procedural failings that undermine the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned amicus curiae for the appellants and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25-09-1997 (sentence passed on 26-09-1997) passed by Sri Ghanshyam Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 233/1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellants Madho Mahto, Ramdeo Mahto and Bhairo Mahto have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC , while the appellants Kamdeo Mahto, Nirmal Mahto and Parsuram Mahto have been convicted for the offence under /149 and the appellant Nirmal Mahto has further been convicted under Section 323 . The appellants Madho Mahto, Ramdeo Mahto and Bhairo Mahto have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under and the appellants Kamdeo Mahto, Nirmal Mahto and Parsuram Mahto have also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under /149 . No separate sentence has been passed for the conviction under . They have also been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

3. The appellants Ramdeo Mahto and Kamdeo Mahto have died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, this appeal stood abated against them vide order dated 09-01-2025.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Jayanti Devi recorded on 26-05-1995 in which it has been stated that on 25-5-1995 at 8:00P.M., the father-in-law of the informant, after having dinner was sleeping in a cot outside the room when at midnight, there was a cry of alarm of the father-in-law of the informant. At this, the informant, who was sleeping in the courtyard, got up and awakened her sister-in-law Lalo Devi who was also sleeping nearby and both came out of their house and saw in the torchlight that Ramdeo Mahto was carrying the father- in-law of the informant on his lap and following him were Madho Mahto, Bhairo Mahto, Kamdeo Mahto, Nirmal Mahto and Parsuram Mahto and they were saying to commit the murder of the father of the informant and implicate Kamdeo Prasad Verma as the assailant. All the accused persons took the father-in-law of the informant to the open courtyard of Kamdeo Prasad Verma and started abusing him. When the informant and her sister-in- law tried to save their father-in-law, Bhairo Mahto pushed the informant, while Nirmal Mahto assaulted Lalo Devi with a spear on her knee and hand. In the meantime, Ramdeo Mahto pierced the right chest of the father-in-law of the informant with a knife who started screaming and fell down on the ground. Madho Mahto and Bhairo Mahto also assaulted him with knife and after some time, the father-in-law of the informant died.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Sarawan P.S. Case No. 34/95 was instituted. On completion 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 Case No. 233/1995. Charge was framed separately against the accused under Section 302 /120B, 302/149, 302 and 323 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

P.W.1 Ajij Ansari has stated that on hearing a cry of alarm he had gone to the house of Mukhiya ji where the daughter and sister-in-law of Mukhiya ji had disclosed that Ramdeo, Madho, Bhairo, Kamdeo, Nirmal and Parsuram have committed the murder of Mukhiya Jhagru Mahto with knives. He had signed on the inquest report.

In cross