The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimonies, recovery of murder weapons, and identification of the accused to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.

JUDGMENT :

R.C. KHULBE, J.

1. Since the appellants in these appeals were tried together and convicted by the court below vide a common judgment, hence both these appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Appellants in these criminal appeals have challenged the judgment and order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S.T. No. 294 of 2007, State vs. Shahnajar and Others, whereby they have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was directed to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 25.01.2007, Rao Budhan Khan (PW-1) submitted a written report at P.S. Kotwali Ranipur, Haridwar to the effect that on 24.01.2007 at about 1:30 PM while he along with his sons Abrar, Karaar and servant Shamim were peeling the sugarcane, two persons came there to extract honey from a honeycomb. When the complainant and his associates stopped those persons not to break the honeycomb to avoid being hurt by the bites of honey bees, those persons began to abuse the complainant and his family members and threatened them of their lives. After that incident, on 25.01.2007 at about 12:00 noon, when the complainant’s sons Abrar, Karar and servant Shamim were peeling the sugarcane and the complainant was watering the fields, four persons, including those two who had quarreled on 24.01.2007, at once assaulted complainant’s elder son Abrar with a dagger and Gandasa (a sharp edged weapon). On raising an alarm by him, the assailants ran away from there extending a threat to kill them also in future. With these averments, the FIR was lodged. Accordingly, the Chick FIR being Crime No. 22 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC was registered against four persons.

4. The matter was investigated and the I.O. after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants.

5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the concerned court committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Accordingly, the concerned Court took the cognizance. Thereafter, the concerned Court framed the charges against the appellants on 30.08.2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Rao Budhan Khan (informant), PW-2 Rao Shahid Khan, PW-3 Khalid, PW-4 Karaar Ahmed (eyewitness), PW-5 Shamim, PW-6 Ali Nawaz, PW-7 Dr. J.S. Chufal, PW-8 Nafasat Khan, PW-9 Inspector Ashok Kumar Arora (I.O.), PW-10 Dr. R.S. Chauhan (who conducted autopsy) and PW-11 S.I. Ram Babu Arya (I.O. of the case).

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the evidence produced by the prosecution.

8. In defence, no evidence was produced.

9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of this judgment.

10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.05.2012, these criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

11. The prosecution has proved Rao Budhan Khan (PW-1) as an eyewitness of the case. By supporting the contents of the FIR lodged by him, he has deposed that on 24.01.2007, two accused persons reached at the spot to break the honeycomb. On being stopped by the complainant’s party, they threatened that they would do so even at the cost of someone’s life, and they also hurled derogatory abuses. On this, his son scolded those persons due to which they left giving a threat that they are the sons of Rohit Pahalwan. On 25.01.2007, when his sons Abraar, Karaar and servant Shamim were doing work in the field, and he (informant) was also working in the adjacent field, at about 12:30 PM those two accused persons, who c