A criminal conviction cannot be based on hearsay or statements from witnesses who were declared hostile, as such evidence lacks the necessary reliability and corroboration to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for serious criminal offences.

JUDGEMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:

The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2003 and 18.09.2003, respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in S.T. No. 16 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 250/-.

Factual Matrix:-

2. Prosecution story as per the Fardbeyan of one Mikhail Munda dated 10.05.2002 recorded by S.I. Indradeo Prasad, officer-in-charge, Mahuwadar Police Station is that the informant’s younger brother Binoy Munda along with his wife Ratani Porath went to his Sasural at Village Jamkona to enjoy festival of Sarhul on the last Monday. After two days, i.e. Wednesday, father of the informant namely Bunu Munda also went to village Jamkona. It is further alleged that the informant’s sister Helena Saras is also married in Village Jamkona who came to the house of the informant on Thursday and told that her father Bunu Munda and brother Binoy Munda have been abducted from their Sasural in the night of Wednesday at about 10-11 PM by three unknown boys. Since, father and brother of the informant did not return, hence, he went to village Jamkona in search of them and also stayed in the night, in the house of his sister. On the next date, one Santri Munda came and told about two dead bodies, lying at the Deogarhi Pokhar. They went to the said place and found the dead bodies of brother and father sustaining cut injuries on neck and face.

3. On the basis of above information, Mahuwadar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2002 dated 10.05.2002 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against three unknown miscreants.

4. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant along with one Ramnath Munda and Parmeshwar Munda for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC.

5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 16 of 2003 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the co-accused Ramnath Munda and Parmeshwar Munda were extended benefit of doubt and were acquitted and Konda Munda (appellant) was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

6. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of sole appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, and learned APP for the State.

Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

7. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution but there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-1 and P.W.-10 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 is the Doctor who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.-3 Smt. Ratni who is the wife of Binoy Munda (deceased) and admittedly went along with her husband to her parental home, where the occurrence has allegedly happened but surprisingly, this witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-5 is the informant who has lodged the FIR against the three unknown miscreants but during the trial, he has improved that wife of Binoy Munda namely Smt. Ratni (P.W.-3) has disclosed him the name of three accused persons, could not be believed at all in the scenario depicted by the informant in his Fardbeyan. P.W.-6 Helena Saras is sister of the informant residing at Village Jamkona has stated that she was informed by her sister-in-law Smt. Ratan