In criminal trials, when evidence permits two reasonable interpretations—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the version favoring the accused must be adopted. Where ocular testimony is contradicted by medical reports, the prosecution's case fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. The appeal of the appellant no.3 namely Munna Yadav and appellant no.4 Nagadi Mahto of Cr. A (DB)No. 610 of 2002 has been abated vide order dated 30.07.2025, due to their death. Now the appeal is being considered in respect of surviving appellants.

3. Above named appellants along with deceased appellants whose appeal abated have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trail No. 70/1999 whereby and whereunder all the above named appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Factual Matrix

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Upasi Devi (P.W.11) has lodged the F.I.R. stating inter alia that on 06.01.1998 at about 02.30 P.M. her husband Prabhu Dayal was taking lunch in his outdoor house, then all of sudden Ghanshyam Yadav (declared juvenile) started raising a scuffle on account of share in household property, meanwhile Gurudayal Yadav, Shankar Yadav and Shambhu Kunwar armed with danda, tangi approached there, then informant’s husband scared and left his lunch and entered into his room and closed the door from inside. It is further alleged that the accused persons started beating the door, thereafter accused persons namely Munna Yadav, Nagadi Mahato, Jhopar Manjhi and Maklu Yadav also came there and they forcibly broke open the door and take out the informant’s husband dragging from the room and brought towards courtyard and thereafter, assaulting him by lathi, danda and tangi carried away to the field of Ganauri Kunwar. It is further alleged that all the accused persons caused severe injuries to the informant’s husband on his chest, abdomen and by pressing his throat killed him on the spot. The informant and her son and others attempted to rescue, but in vain.

5. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant (Upasi Devi P.W.11) Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 02 of 1998 was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, two charge-sheets were submitted against all the above named appellants who claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that altogether 22 witnesses were examined in this case in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. All witnesses of facts are family members of the informant. Most of the witnesses of facts including mother of the deceased, sisters of deceased and other relatives who have not been declared hostile, but specifically stated that the deceased was an old person and habitual drunker and on the date of occurrence, he has taken heavy drink, therefore he could not control himself and fell down on the woods and sustained injuries on his chest and died, but wife and sons of the deceased due to dispute regarding partition of household properties have fabricated a false story regarding assault given to the deceased at his home and thereafter, dragging him towards the field which is the place of occurrence situated at a distance of 50 meters. The manner of occurrence and weapon of assault alleged to be used by the appellants by the so called eye-witnesses does not