Conviction for murder is sustainable on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if credible. Defective investigation alone does not invalidate the prosecution's case. Intentional, premeditated fatal attacks with lethal weapons on vital body parts constitute murder, excluding the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against judgment of conviction dated 29.04.1998 and the order of sentence dated 04.05.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appellant, namely, Bindeshwar Murmu has been convicted under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life.

Factual Matrix

2. The prosecution case was instituted on the fardbayan of the informant Babni Manjhian (P.W.-6) recorded on 07.10.1996 at 3.00 P.M., at courtyard of her house, who stated that at 12 Noon, she served meal to her father-in-law Chandlal Manjhi (deceased), age 60 years, in the courtyard and thereafter, she sat on the door (Chaukhat) with her child.

3. Informant further stated that in the meantime, the wife of the accused Bindeshwar Manjhi (appellant herein), who is also sister-in -law(sarhaj) of her father-in-law and was living with her family in the informant’s house for the last three months, came to the courtyard. Then, Chandlal Manjhi (deceased) told her to sit, then, she sat by the side of Chandlal Manjhi and started talking.

4. Informant further stated that in the meantime accused Bindeshwar Murmu, who was lying in the cot in room adjoining to the courtyard, came towards the courtyard and seeing them sitting together, went inside the room and came out of the room armed with katra (katta) [ a weapon used to cut he goat] and in anger, started inflicting repeated katra (katta) blows on the head of her father-in-law Chandlal Manjhi.

5. The informant ran outside raising halla then villagers came and accused Bindeshwar Murmu tried to flee away after jumping the boundary wall, but he was chased and apprehended by the villagers. Informant’s father- in-law Chandlal Manjhi, died on the place of occurrence itself. Katra (katta) used in the commission of crime was kept by the villager, which was handed over to the police.

6. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 91/1996 dated 07.10.1996 was registered against the appellant under section 304 of IPC. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offences under sections 304/302 IPC and, thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions.

7. Charges were framed against the appellant under section 304 of IPC to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Trial commenced and the statements of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the learned trial Court.

9. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is under challenge herein.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds for interfering with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment:

(i) The learned Trial Court has decided the case from a wrong angle of vision and thus, came to an erroneous decision.

(ii) The learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that there is virtually no evidence to show the complicity of the appellant with the alleged occurrence.

(iii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the informant (PW-6) in her fardbeyan has stated that the weapon katra (katta) was handed over to the police by the co-villagers but in her deposition, she has stated that she did not know as to who had handed over the said weapon to the police.

(iv) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that no finger’s print of the accused/appellant has been taken by the Investigation Officer to prove that the appellant had only used the said weapon katra (katta).

(v) It has been contended that the another eye witness of the said occurrence, namely, Budhni Manjhian