Eyewitness testimony, even with contradictions, can substantiate murder convictions when corroborated by forensic evidence showing the brutal nature of the crime.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.1997 (sentence passed on 16.09.1997) passed by Sri G. K. Verma, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 96 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34, 452/34 and 342/34 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /34 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence under Section 452 /34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 354 /34 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of Anu Kumari @ Anuradha Kumari recorded on 24.07.1992 in which it has been stated that about a month back the informant had come to the quarter of her maternal uncle – Ram Bharosa Singh and Sukhnandan Singh and was taking care of the children of Ram Bharosa Singh. It has been stated that on the orders of Ram Bharosa Singh and his wife, the informant used to go to Baridih market for purchasing vegetables and medicines. It has been alleged that during the visit of the informant to the market, Guddu @ Bijay Lal and D. Shankar Rao used to make obscene gestures to her. It has been stated that last night, the informant after her dinner had gone to sleep in a room along with her cousins while Ram Bharosa Singh and his wife slept in another room. The uncle of the informant – S. N. Singh had gone for his duty. The door of the room of the informant was bolted from outside by Ram Bharosa Singh. It has been further alleged that in between 2:30 – 2:45 P.M., the accused persons had come inside the room of the informant, started touching her body and asked her to come with them. When the informant raised an alarm, Ram Bharosa Singh came running at which both the accused with knives in their possession repeatedly stabbed him and when the wife of Ram Bharosa Singh raised an alarm, the accused persons had fled away. The neighbours who had assembled had taken Ram Bharosa Singh to the hospital where he was declared dead.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sidgora P. S. Case No. 64 of 1992 was instituted under Sections 448 , 307, 302/34 of I.P.C. 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 S. T. No. 96 of 1994. Charges were framed under Sections 302 /34, 307/34, 452/34 and 354/34 of I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 3 witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W. 1 – Badri Nath Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.

6. P.W. 2 – Shashi Bhushan Singh has stated that on 24.07.1992 at 5:00 A.M., he had received an information that his brother Ram Bharosa Singh has been murdered at which he and his family members had rushed to the house of Ram Bharosa Singh where his wife had disclosed about the accused persons committing the murder of her husband and outraging the modesty of Anu Kumari. Anu Kumari on being asked had stated similarly. He has proved his signature on the Inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. The Inquest report has been marked ‘X’ for identification.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that it takes about 10-15 minutes to cover the distance from his house to the place of occurrence. He was informed about the occurrence by his neighbours, the name of whom he does not remember.

7. P.W. 3 – Gaya Singh has stated that he had come to know at about 3:00 A.M. that his nephew Ram Bharosa Singh had been murdered. When he went, he found Ram Bharosa Singh lyin