IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the necessity of reliable witness testimony and corroborative evidence for securing a conviction in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-The present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants Mazeed, Abdul Hameed and Abdul Rasheed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.12.2018, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot in Session Trial No. 21 of 2017 (State v. Mazeed and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 560 of 2016, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default whereof they are to further undergo one month additional imprisonment; under Section 452 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof they are to further undergo ten days additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case proceeds on a written report of the first informant (PW-1), scribed by Dharamraj Singh (Ex.Ka.1), dated 10.12.2016, as per which, on the previous night i.e. 9.12.2016 at around 08.00 p.m. the informant's brother Anyaveer Singh @ Veeru (deceased) aged about 23 years had came to his house near the road to sleep after having his meal. The informant also came later at about 09.30 p.m. to sleep in the same house. On coming to this house he found that shutter of house was raised by 2 feet and some noise was coming from inside. The informant entered the house and saw that accused appellants were strangulating the deceased by a rope. On seeing the informant, the accused appellants pushed him and fled through the shutter. Apart from informant the incident was seen by Anita Singh (PW-2) wife of Rajendra Singh @ Pappu Singh, who was standing on the roof of her house situated nearby and identified the accused. The informant came to his brother and found him dead. The electric bulb was lit outside the houses of Rajendra Singh and informant. There was a dispute going on with regard to a kiosk put by the accused in front of informant's house. The informant out of fear did not report the incident in the night and reported it in the morning.

3. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka.1) First Information Report (Ex.Ka.5) was lodged at 08.30 a.m. on 10.12.2016 as Case Crime No. 560 of 2016 under Sections 302, 452 IPC, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot. Thereafter, the police arrived at the spot and inquest was conducted at about 10.45 a.m. on 10.12.2016. As per the inquest (Ex.Ka.10), information about the incident was furnished by informant (PW-1) and the cause of death apparently was strangulation. A nylon rope as well as axe and stick was also found on the spot (vide Ex.Ka.8). PW-1 is also an inquest witness. In order to ascertain the cause of death the inquest witnesses opined that the postmortem of deceased be conducted. Consequently, the dead body was sealed and sent to mortuary for postmortem. The postmortem (Ex.Ka.4) was conducted at 03.00 p.m. on the same day. The Autopsy Surgeon determined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the deceased :

''(i) A ligature mark present in Neck, circular in shape. No gap. Size Neck circumference 35 cm. Ligature mark 32x2cm. U/L tissue congested and ecchymossed.

(ii) Abrasion on the chin size 2x1cm.

(iii) Abrasion on the right side of the chest size 3x1cm just below right clavicle.

(iv) Abrasion on the right side of the forehead size 2x1cm just above right eyebrow.

(v) Abrasion on the right eyelid size 2x1cm.''

4. The Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the accused appellants and after recording the statement of witnesses, including PW-1 and PW-2, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., concluded the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants. The Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it got registered as Session Trial No21 of 2017. Charges were framed against the accused appellants under Sections 30