Conviction for murder cannot be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's claim of fatal injuries and there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence, creating reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death.

JUDGMENT :

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2003 and 31.01.2003 respectively, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Godda, in Sessions Case No.41 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix:-

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of Siyawati Devi is that on 20.02.1998 at about 06:00 P.M., one Sunita Devi daughter of Ganesh Singh came to her house and called her husband for Panchayati held at her house. The reason for convening Panchayat was that a watch of informant’s son Santosh Kumar was traceless since 4-5 days and suspicion was against son of Sunita Devi. It is alleged that informant’s husband went along with Sunita Devi to attend Panchayat where Ganesh Singh, Birendra Singh and Budul Singh brutally assaulted her husband due to which he became unconscious then around 07:00 P.M., the accused persons Birendra Singh, Budul Singh and Pappu Singh lifting her husband brought to her house and left in her drawing room. The informant’s husband complained about the assault given by the accused persons and was under apprehension of his death. He also asked water and after taking water her husband died in the night.

On the basis of above fardbeyan, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 against above named accused persons. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

4. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to previous dispute, however, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

5. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and no one has claimed that the deceased went to the house of appellants for attending a Panchayat. Although, P.W.-1 Amrendra Prasad Singh, who happens to be brother-in-law of deceased, has stated that he returned from the market along with deceased after purchasing onion seeds, he also went to the house of accused persons along with Sunita Devi but due to threatening extended by accused persons, he returned back. He has also stated that a Panchayat was convened. It is very surprising that not a single witness who attended the Panchayat has been examined by prosecution. It is further submitted that the claim of prosecution is that the deceased was brutally assaulted by appellants and thereafter, left at his house and in the night he died but no external injury was found on the person of deceased rather two injuries were on back side caused by hard blunt substance which have been opined by the doctor not sufficient to cause death of the deceased rather they were simple in nature. Therefore, the whole prosecution story as depicted in the F.I.R. becomes false and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the cause of death of the deceased.

6. The viscera of the deceased were also preserved