- (1.) THIS appeal is directed Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2004 and 30.04.2004 respectively passed by Shri Shri Ashish Saxena, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 1995, convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.
(2.) THE Prosecution case in brief is that the informant-Yadav Kisku (PW-1) lodged information on 05.03.1995 at about 23.45 hrs. before the police in the jungle that when Meeru Kisku (PW-8), wife of Shobha Kisku (PW-3), was returning through jungle, the appellant told her to inform the informant that his sister, Laxmi Kisku (deceased) was sleeping in the jungle. On which, PW-8 went near Laxmi and found her dead in the Nala. PW-8 informed about this incident to the mother of the informant on which, she went and saw that the appellant was dragging the deceased by catching her hair towards the jungle, on which the mother of the informant caught her, but the appellant fled away. It was further alleged that there was love affair between the appellant and the deceased and they had gone to some other place about a year back and after they returned, they started living in their respective houses in the village. About ten days back, again they went away, but they returned a couple of days prior to the alleged incident. The informant expressed doubt that the appellant has killed his sister by strangulation. Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on various grounds, whereas the counsel for the State supported it. After hearing the parties at length and going through the records, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant as there is no eyewitness in this case and even as per the FIR and the evidence of PW-8, it is the appellant who himself informed about the death of the deceased. As per the doctor, death was due to shock and asphyxia caused by strangulation. PW-8 has not supported the story of dragging the deceased as disclosed in the FIR.
(3.) THUS, the only allegation against the appellant is that when the informant party reached near the dead body on the information sent by the appellant, he fled away from that place. In our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial court against the appellant, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant, Sufal Hansda, is in jail for about eight years. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. I.A. No. 1062/2012 also stands disposed of.;