IMPORTANT POINT
The principle established is that the prosecution must provide reliable evidence and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in serious offenses such as murder, where the consequences are severe.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2019 and 29.4.2019, passed by Sessions Judge, Amroha, in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 2016 (State Vs. Matgulla @ Ajay and another), arising out of Case Crime No.60 of 2016; and Sessions Trial No.171 of 2016 (State Vs. Matgulla @ Ajay) arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2016, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha, whereby the accused appellants Matgulla @ Ajay and Sanjay have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.30,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo additional imprisonment for one year; two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 IPC, and also accused appellant Matgulla @ Ajay has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and on failure to deposit fine to undergo additional imprisonment for three months. All sentences are to run concurrently.

2. Written report of informant Lala (PW-1) forms the basis of prosecution case as per which his brother had lit fire near the graveyard and was sitting by it, to warm himself in cold weather, when the two accused arrived and started hurling abuses to the informant’s brother. The incident is of 13.2.2016 at 6.30 PM. Ranjeet (PW-2), the informant’s brother (deceased) and Dharmpal (not produced) objected to the abuses whereafter the accused persons inflicted knife blows on the deceased. On the basis of such written report the first information report came to be lodged on the date of incident under Sections 307, 504 IPC at 9.30 hours as Case Crime No.60 of 2016. The Investigating Officer collected bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. Recovery memo in that regard has been exhibited as Ex.Ka-10. The injured brother was rushed to the local primary health centre wherein the doctor incharge examined him and vide his report (Ex.Ka-2) indicated following injuries on him:-

“(i) I/w 3 x 1 cm on left side of chest 10 cm above umbilicus.”

3. The injured brother died couple of hours later. Inquest was conducted around 9.00 pm on the date of incident (Ex.Ka- 4). Postmortem was conducted on the next date i.e. 14.2.2016 at 1.00 pm. As per the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-3), following ante-mortem injuries were found on the deceased:-

“Stabbed wound size 3.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, margins are inverted, present on left side of abdomen, 12 cm below left nipple and 12 cm above umbilicus and 3 cm lateral to midline.”

4. The cause of death has been specified as shock due to ante-mortem injury. Clothes worn by the deceased were also taken in custody and all such recovered materials were sent to Forensic Research Laboratory, Agra.

5. Accused Matgulla was thereafter arrested on 15.2.2016 and on his pointing out the weapon of assault i.e. knife was recovered from the bushes nearby the place of occurrence. The recovery of knife has been exhibited as Ex.Ka-11. Another first information report under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was then registered on 15.2.2016, at 20.10 hours, being Case Crime No.62 of 2016. The recovered knife was also sent to FSL, Agra for its scientific examination.

6. The report of FSL has been exhibited as Paper No.23-A. As per this report blood was found on all items including the knife. However, blood on the knife was found disintegrated, and therefore, it could not be matched. Investigation ultimately concluded with submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-14) against the accused appellants under Section 302, 307, 504 IPC. A separate chargesheet (Ex.Ka-20) was also submitted against the accused Matgulla under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was taken on the chargesheets, whereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions where it got registered as Sessions Trial Nos.171 and 172 of 2016. The accused appellants denied the charges framed against them and demanded trial.

7. In addition to