Sole accused cannot be convicted on same evidence where co-accused acquitted unless clinching proof of individual guilt; unreliable eyewitness testimony with enmity, non-disclosure, and suspicious conduct insufficient for murder conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ist Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17.08.2001, the village Chaukidar Moni Turi was returning back after discharging his duties then he came to know that a widow lady has been murdered in Das Tola Handadih. The informant went to the said village and enquired into the matter and came to know that Jharkhandi Das, Tejo Das, Bhuneshwar Das and Karu Das had committed murder of Most. Chandri Devi with intention to grab house and other properties because she had only three daughter and all the daughters were married and residing at their respective matrimonial home. All the four accused persons were not found present in their respective house.

4. The fardbeyan of Chaukidar Moni Turi was recorded by S.I. of Giridih (M) Police Station. Accordingly, Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 252/2001 was registered under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the four accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance committed the case to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 384/2001 was registered and trial proceeded against the accused persons.

5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above and acquitted the rest three accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the basis of same evidence three accused persons have been acquitted in this case. In spite of that, the present appellant was held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. without recording any finding that the appellant was sole responsible for commission of murder of the deceased. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the appellant was implicated only on the basis of suspicion, which never culminated into legal proof. AS such, impugned judgment is fit to be set aside. Appellant deserves acquittal.

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention and has submitted that in order to grab the landed property and house of the deceased, who was a widow lady having no son and her three daughters were already married, the present appellant has committed her murder. The post-mortem report of the deceased also corroborates the prosecution story. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence of murder do not call for any interference. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

8. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in this appeal or not?”

9. Before imparting any verdict on the above point, we have to take brief resume of the prosecution evidence adduced in this case.

10. It appe