A conviction based on hearsay evidence and failure to prove direct involvement leads to the need for definitive evidence beyond doubt. Court must scrutinize witness credibility and ensure no substantial errors or omissions undermine the verdict.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the sole appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the informant.

2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was filed by three accused persons, out of them, appellant No.1, Ashok Mukhi and appellant No.3, Sumit Mukhi have died and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 13.08.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of the sole surviving appellant, namely, Amit Mukhi.

3. The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.03.2003 passed by learned 5th, Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. Case No.89 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the present appellant has been held guilty for the offence under sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Factual Matrix:-

4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 01.01.2001 at 9:00 pm, the informant, Ramesh Mukhi (P.W.9) returned to his quarter then his wife Anjula Devi (P.W.5) told him that their son, Umesh Mukhi has been assaulted by the appellants in the street. The informant managed first aid of his injured son at CCL Hospital, Jarandih, thereafter, brought to Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro for further treatment but on 02.01.2001 at about 8:30 am, Umesh Mukhi died in the hospital.

5. On the basis of written report of the informant, Bokaro Thermal P. S. Case No.01 of 2001 was registered for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against all three accused persons, namely, Ashok Mukhi, Amit Mukhi and Sumit Mukhi. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. All the accused persons faced trial and convicted and sentenced as stated above.

6. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, namely:-

P.W.1-Bhim Ram

P.W.2- Rajesh Mukhi

P.W.3-Raju Turi

P.W.4-Dr. Ratneshwar Pd. Verma

P.W.5-Anjula Devi

P.W.6-Renu Kumari

P.W.7-Shyam Bihar Singh Dinkar

P.W.8-Ram Lakhan Prasad

P.W.9- Ramesh Mukhi(informant)

P.W.10-S.I. Basant Pathak (I.O.)

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

Ext. 1- Post-mortem report

Ext.2.-Inquest R

Ext.3- Formal FIR Ext.3/1-Endorsement on formal FIR

Ext.4-Written report Ext.4/1-Signature of Ramesh Mukhi on written report Ext.4/2-Signature of Shakil Alam on written report

Ext.5- Charge-sheets Ext.6-Case diary

8. On the other hand, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. However, the defence has also examined altogether six witnesses namely:-

D.W.1-Bhimlal Mandal

D.W.2-Khageshwar Rajak

D.W.3-Md. Idu

D.W.4-Uma Shankar Prasad

D.W.5-Ranjit Singh

D.W.6-Ashok Mukhi(deceased appellant)

Submission on behalf of the Appellant:-

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to some altercation took place between his father and the deceased, Umesh Mukhi on the occasion of new-year. It is further submitted that neither the informant nor his wife has seen the occurrence rather they are hearsay witnesses. No specific role has been attributed against the appellant, Amit Mukhi. It is further submitted that in the written report lodged by the informant, it is alleged that the occurrence was seen by Nageshwar Bishwakarma, wife of Madhu Thakur and wife of Doodhnath Dubey but the aforesaid witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. The witnesses, who were closed relatives a