Unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction, leading to the reversal of a murder conviction based on insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-09-2003 passed by Sri Rama Shankar Shukla, learned 6^th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2003/ 08 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the Appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Hopan Murmu recorded on 28-11-2002 in which it has been stated that the father-in-law of the informant, namely, Chunda Hembram, was working for the last 7-8 days in the house of Vimal Mirdha as a shepherd. On 27-11-2002, Kubraj Murmu, the Pradhan of the village of the informant, had disclosed that he has received information from the Pradhan of Harna village that Chunda Hembram has been murdered by Nishikant Singh, who has hidden the dead body in Ultandi Dangal with the help of the villagers. At this information, the informant along with some villagers had gone to Ultandi Dangal where the dead body of Chunda Hembram was located and there were signs of violence in his body. The informant along with the villagers had thereafter enquired from Asahana village wherein the villagers had disclosed that Nishikant Singh had assaulted Chunda Hembram with lathi and danda on the allegation that he had taken away two oxen about two months back.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 106/02 was instituted under Section 302/201/34-IPC. 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. 134/03. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302, 201/34 IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of his case:

P.W.1 Hopan Murmu is the informant who has stated that the Pradhan of Harna village had disclosed to her that Nishikant Singh has committed the murder of her father-in-law Chunda Hembram. She had gone to Ultandi Dangal along with the villagers and saw the body of Chunda Hembram. Her fardbeyan was recorded in the Police Station.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had seen blood on the road which was going towards the place where the dead body of her father-in-law was lying. She had not witnessed the assault.

P.W.2 Ravan Rai did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.3 Kubraj Murmu is the Pradhan of village Mas Birua who has stated that about 5-6 months back, the Pradhan of Harna village had informed him that a person from his village has been murdered by Nisho Singh and the dead body has been thrown in Ultandi Dangal. He had seen the dead body of Chunda Hembram.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the incident.

P.W.4 Some Hembram has stated about the information given by the Pradhan of Harna village that a murder has been committed by Nishi Singh. He had not seen the assault so committed.

P.W.5 Vinod Kumar was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Dumka(M) P.S. and on 28-11-2002, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Hopan Murmu, he had registered Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 106/02. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has also