Conviction requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt; untrustworthy eyewitness testimony cannot sustain a murder conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The aforesaid appellants have preferred the present appeal through Jail Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan, Central Prison, Hazaribag through Letter No. 1741 dated 07.07.2004.

2. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 302 /34 of IPC by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur vide impugned judgment dated 12.03.2004.

Factual Matrix:-

3. On 25.08.2001 at about 14:00 hours, Fardbeyan of one Mr. Dilip Kumar Hansda (Village Pradhan), Tilwariya (Manjhitola) was recorded by S.I. Dayanand Azad (P.W.-10), Officer-in-charge of Pakuria Police Station stating inter alia in the presence of Village Chowkidar-Bharat Rai that in the morning, some villagers came to him and told that dead body of a person is lying near Tilwaria Village Math. He along with other villagers went to place of occurrence and saw the dead body of a person aged about 30-35 years was lying and it appeared that the said person was crushed by bolder (Big Stone) on his head and blood was oozing from nose also. None of the villagers succeeded to identify the said person, who was suspected to be outsider.

On the basis of above information, Pakuria P.S. Case No. 27 of 2001 was registered against unknown miscreants for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC .

From the place of occurrence, one 10KG black colour round stone, one red colour blood stained Gamcha of deceased, blood stained earth, one pair slipper were seized (Exhibit-5). Inquest report of unknown dead body was prepared in presence of witnesses, namely, Babulal Hansda (P.W.-1) and Francis Marandi (P.W.-2).

Charge of investigation was undertaken by S.I., Dayanand Azad (P.W.- 10) of Pakuria Police Station who visited the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for Post-Mortem.

Village Chowkidar, Bharat Rai disclosed that the unknown deceased belonged to village Karipahari (Paharitola) P.S. Gopikander, Dist. Dumka, thereafter, mother of the deceased namely Dukhni Rani (P.W.-9) was contacted and her statement was recorded. The I.O. has also interrogated with other local villagers and eyewitnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the above named accused persons for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC .

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Case No. 26 of 2002 was registered and the accused persons denied from the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by prosecution: -

i. Exhibit-1 (Formal F.I.R.)

ii. Exhibit-2 (Post-Mortem Report of the deceased)

iii. Exhibit-3 (Fardbeyan)

iv. Exhibit-4 (Carbon Copy of Inquest Report)

v. Exhibit-5 (Seizure List)

6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion. There was no land dispute as alleged between the deceased and the accused persons.

7. The learned Trial Court placing reliance upon the testimony of eye witnesses i.e. P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 namely Jilal Dehri and Chhota Lukhu Dehri, respectively and other circumstantial evidence has held the appellants guilty for murder of the deceased and sentenced them as stated above.

Submissions on behalf of appellants:-

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants on following grounds:-

i. The appellants ar