Conviction based on the testimony of a single witness, who lacks credibility due to long delays in reporting, physical constraints, and total absence of corroborating evidence, is unsustainable. Appellate courts must set aside such convictions where the trial court fails to address material inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 31st January, 2004 passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 405 of 1993 corresponding Daltonganj Sadar P.S. Case No. 40 of 1991 (G.R. Case No. 109 of 1991) whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

2. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night of 25-26/01/1991, a person Dukhi Oraon was murdered. F.I.R. was lodged by one Mr. Vishwanath Vishwakarma (P.W.-2) on 26.01.1991 at about 02:00 PM stating inter alia that at about 12:00 noon when he went for fishing in Beti Bandh, he found a dead body near the Nahar (Canal) who was later on identified as Dukhi Oraon by village Mukhiya. It is alleged that the said person was killed by wrapping Lungi etc. and there were some injuries on his body. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown miscreants for committing murder of the deceased Dukhi Oraon.

In the course of investigation, statement of three witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. showing involvement of the present appellants in the alleged offence of murder. Therefore, after completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the aforesaid appellants for the offences under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T.Case No. 405 of 1993 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried

4. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined in this case but the investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution. On 20.03.1991, the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of three prosecution witnesses namely Bali Oraon (P.W.-1), Raman Mochi @ Raman Ram (P.W.-5) and Rajdeo Oraon (P.W.-6) were recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.

P.W.-1 Bali Oraon

P.W.-2 Vishwanath Vishwakarma (Informant)

P.W.-3 Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh(Assistant, Civil Court)

P.W.-4 Kanhai Ram (Village Mukhiya)

P.W.-5 Raman Ram @ Raman Mochi

P.W.-6 Rajdeo Oraon

P.W.-7 Narayan Chandra Agrawal

P.W.-8 Rajnish Kumar, Advocate Clerk

5. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution: -

Ext.-1 Statement of Bali Oraon under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Ext.-1/1 Statement of Raman Ram under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Ext.-1/2 Statement of Rajdeo Oraon under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Ext.-2 Post Mortem Report Ext.-3 F.I.R.

Ext.-4 Carbon copy of Inquest Report Ext.-5 Case-Diary (Para -9)

6. On the other hand, the case of the defence is false implication and they are innocent. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

7. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that admittedly the occurrence happened in the night of 25-26/01/1991. The so-called eye witness P.W.-1 Bali Oraon whose statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. after two months of the occurrence i.e. on 20th March, 1991 has simply stated that he saw the accused persons namely Bishwanath Manjhi, Surender Manjhi and Sant Lal Manjhi caught hold of Dukhi Oraon and started assaulting by slaps and Danda, when intervene