A criminal conviction cannot be sustained on inconsistent testimony and the evidence of hostile witnesses. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failing this, the integrity of the chain of evidence is broken, necessitating an acquittal regardless of the silence of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 21.01.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No.77 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant Silas Soren is posted as Chaukidar at Palkot Police Station but on the day of occurrence, he was deputed to discharge his duties as Chaukidar at Bank of India. It was alleged that on 02.11.2000 at about 04:30 p.m., after discharging his duties from bank, he was returning to his home and reached near the house of Tintus Soren then he heard some hallah and proceeded towards the house of his cousin brother Tintus Soren. In the meantime, he saw his cousin brothers Tarsius Soren and Mariyanus Soren coming out from the house of Tintus Soren and fleeing away. He also noticed a weapon like "Bongath" in the hands of Mariyanus Soren. It is alleged that with a view to know what happened, he went to the house of Tintus Soren. Then Sameer Lakra and Tintus Soren came out and told that informant's father Alfosh Soren has been assaulted by Tarsius and Mariyanus who are fleeing away. The informant went inside the house of Tintus Soren where in the courtyard, he found his father was lying in injured condition sustaining injuries but he was not capable to speak anything. It was disclosed by Tintus Soren (P.W.7) and Sameer Lakra (P.W.2) that while they were consuming Hanria along with informant's father, meanwhile, Tarsius and Mariyanus entered in the house from back door. Tarsius was having a woodlog and assaulted 3-4 blows on the head of informant's father due to which he sustained injuries on head and fell down. When Sameer rushed to save the Alfosh Suren, meanwhile, the accused persons fled away. In the meantime, informant's brother and mother also arrived at the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is alleged that father and mother of the accused persons died and they were suspecting some black magic committed at the hand of deceased.

On the basis of above information, Palkot P.S. Case No.39 of 2000 dated 02.11.2000 was registered for the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named accused persons for the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. The case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. No.77 of 2001 was registered. The accused persons denied from charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences were adduced by the prosecution :-

Exhibit 1 : Signature of Silas Soren on fardbeyan

Exhibit 1/1 : F.I.R.

Exhibit 2 : Post-mortem Report

6. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by defence.

7. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence ava