Conviction requires credible evidence; mere suspicion and contradictions among witnesses cannot sustain a guilty verdict.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred challenging the conviction and sentence dated 03.06.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of one Ran Bijay Singh dated 21.01.1991 at about 8:30 hours is that on last Thursday i.e. on 17.01.1991, the brother of the informant namely, Brij Nandan Singh went outside from the house and till 19.01.1991, he did not return back, then suspicion arose and family members started searching out. It is alleged that during course of search, one Kailash Singh of Village – Mahugain told that informant’s brother was seen drinking tari in the bagan of Prayag Pasi at Kalyanpur Aahar. It was told that one Ayodhya Singh had seen the brother of informant coming back after consuming tari with one Pashupati Pandey and Sohrai Bhuiyan of Village Salaiya, P.S. – Imamganj, District – Gaya. They have also seen Brij Nandan Singh laying down in courtyard of Prayag Pasi. It is also alleged that earlier, there was a dispute between Brij Nandan Singh, brother of informant and Prayag Pasi, which was settled without lodging any FIR. Therefore, informant suspects that due to previous enmity Prayag Pasi along with his associates Pashupati Pandey @ Bhuchu Pandey and others might have committed murder of his brother and concealed the dead body at a secret place.

4. On the basis of above fardbeyan (Exhibit-5), Pratappur P.S. Case No. 04 / 1991 was registered against the above-named accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 / 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 328/1994 was registered and trial commenced. In course of trial, one co-accused Prayag Pasi was absconding and his case was separated vide S.T. No. 328A/1994 and trial proceeded against present appellants, who have been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. They have no inimical terms with the deceased nor have any concern with the co-accused Prayag Pasi, against whom previous dispute has been alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the appellants have been convicted only on the basis of evidence of P.W.-1 Dwarika Singh and P.W.-3 Mosaheb Singh. Virtually these two witnesses are not eye-witnesses of the occurrence and their testimony appears to be very unnatural and unworthy of credence. They have claimed to see the accused persons while fleeing away in the night of 17.01.1991 itself from a distance of 133 ft. in a torch light. Surprisingly these witnesses have also admitted that they informed about the occurrence in the evening of 18.01.1991 to police, but no such FIR was lodged at their instance and they have also admitted that the informant, who was close door neighbour of witnesses, was also not informed about the above occurrence. Therefore, the theory of last seen propound