Point of Law: Criminal Law - Witnesses - Reliability of - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 who are chance witnesses and claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of incident. Their evidence does not appear to be reliable and trustworthy particularly the manner in which incident has taken place in night which does not found corroborated with medical evidence, therefore, prosecution story creates doubt and benefit of doubt goes in favour of appellants - Prosecution has failed to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Both the appeals have been filed by appellants namely Nitin Singh and Amit Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2014, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 5, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 31 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 552 of 2011, under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Cantt. District Faizabad, whereby learned trial court has convicted the appellants, namely Nitin Singh and Amit Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 12,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for one year. Both the appellants have filed two separate appeals. The aforesaid appeals are being decided by way of common judgment.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 22.03.2011 at about 10:00 p.m. the informant-Ashok Kumar Singh and Ram Kumar Singh riding on one motorcycle and Bhushan Veer Singh and Neeraj Singh riding on another motorcycle were returning from Faizabad to their village-Manapur, when they reached at Raipur canal bridge, they saw in the head light of their motorcycle that the appellants-Nitin Singh and Amit Singh were assaulting one person on the south lane of bridge with danda and axe. When the assailants saw that the bikers are approaching towards them, they left the person and ran away. Thereafter, informant and three other persons reached on the spot and found that the injured (Arun Kumar Singh) was real brother of the informant, they tried to move the injured, who was in pool of blood and found that he was dead. On the written complaint of Ashok Kumar Singh (informant), the FIR in question was lodged as Case Crime No. 552 of 2011 (Exhibit K-7) and the same was entered into general diary. On the basis of FIR, the police officers reached on the spot and prepared the site plan and body was sent for postmortem, thereafter the postmortem was conducted on 23.03.2011 at 2:30 p.m.

3. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. B.M. Maurya, Medical Officer, who appeared before the trial court as PW-5. As per postmortem report, he found eight ante mortem injuries and opined that the cause of death is due to coma as a result of ante-mortem injury. The ante mortem injury mentioned in the postmortem report are as follows:-

“(i) Abraded contusion of size 0.7 cm x 0.5 cm present on right side of forehead 5.0 cm above the middle of right eyebrow.

(ii) Four incised wound of size 4.0 to 4.5 cm length bone deep and 0.8 to 1.0 cm width present in area of 9.0 cm x 6.0 cm on left occipital region and is 5.0 cm postero superior to left ear. Underlying bone is fractured.

(iii) Incised wound of size 6.0 cm x 1.0 cm present on right parietal region and is bone deep 8.0 cm above right ear.

(iv) Contusion size 5.0 cm x 2.0 cm present on tip of left shoulder joint.

(v) Abraded contusion of size 10.0 cm x 3.0 cm present on lateral aspect of left arm 5.0 cm below the tip of left shoulder joint.

(vi) Abraded contusion of size 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm present on exterior aspect of left forearm 6 cm below the elbow joint.

(vii) Abraded contusion of size 3.0 x 1.0 cm present on exterior aspect of right elbow joint.

(viii) Abraded contusion of size 3.0 x 1.0 cm present on medial aspect of right forearm 9.0 cm above the wrist joint.”

4. The injury and external condition of the body of the deceased clearly reveals that death of the deceased is a case of homicide.

5. On the basis of site plan, recovery memo, postmortem report and statements of the accused persons as well as of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that it was a case of homicide which was caused by the appellants, thereafter, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed before the Court of Sessions, which was registered as S.T. No. 31 of 2012 and charge was framed against the appellants on 18.02.2012, under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. In support of prosecution case, five w