D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) BOTH the Criminal Appeals are arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced dated 10th and 11th July, 2000 respectively, passed by the learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 1997/T.R. No. 4 of 2000, arising out of Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 480 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No. 2935 of 1996, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 10th July, 2000 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and they have further been convicted for the offence under Section 201 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as under: The date of incident is 14th October, 1996 at Shiva Chemical Factory. Chandra Bahadur alias Burha Bahadur (deceased) along with PW 1 (Jagernath Munda) and PW 2 (Kunul Topno) were on duty at Shiva Chemical Factory. At about 7.00 p.m. both the accused -appellants came and knocked the gate of the factory and, thereafter, Chandra Bahadur alias Burha Bahadur (deceased), who was serving as a nightguard of the factory, opened the small gate. Accused came inside. The informant was also there in the factory. Both the accused gave threat only to the informant -Jagernath Munda (PW 1) that they want to teach a lesson to Chandra Bahadur alias Burha Bahadur. Thereafter, both the accused had gone towards the colony side and within fifteen minutes they came back. They attacked Chandra Bahadur alias Burha Bahadur (deceased) by giving fists blows and knife blows. The deceased had fallen down in front of the office of the factory premises and, thereafter, he was thrown in the furnace. The informant was supplying coal to the furnace of the factory. Thereafter, both the accused had gone to the house of PW 2 (Kunul Topno) where they told PW 2 (Kunul Topno) and his wife PW 4 (Asrani Topno) that they have committed murder of Chandra Bahadur alias Burha Bahadur (deceased) and they gave threat that they should not disclose this fact to any one. There were other workmen also in the factory on the date of incident. No other workmen has been examined as witness except PW 1 (Jagernath Munda), PW 2 (Kunul Topno) and PW 5 (Ramdas Choudhary), who, as per the First Information Report, lodged by PW 1 (Jagernath Munda), had stayed in the factory in the night of 14th October, 1996, nor the fire of furnace was extinguished by the informant (PW 1), who was supplying coal to the furnace, so that a man's life can be saved or at least traces of the human being could be find out by the Investigating Officer. Though PW 2 (Kunul Topno), PW 3 (Krishna Kumar Sharma - owner of the factory) and PW 4 (Asrani Topno) were informed by PW 1 (the informant) immediately after the incident, they did not disclose anyone about the incident, much less to police on 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th October, 1996. The First Information Report was lodged by PW. 1 (the informant) only on 18th October, 1996. Neither the dead body was recovered nor the scene of offence Panchanama has been drawn nor any blood sample has been recovered where the deceased was attacked by knife initially nor there is any post -mortem report nor the Investigating Officer has been examined nor other witnesses, who were present in the factory premises, have been examined. Charge sheet was filed and upon evidence of solitary eye witness (PW 1) the conviction has been accorded against these appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 to be read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 201 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment for seven years and, therefore, the present appeals have been preferred.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, who has mainly submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. There are number of omissions, contradictions and improvement in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and, therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there were other witnesses also in the factory, who were working in the factory, have not been examined. The whole case of the prosecution is based upon the solitary eye witness Jagernath Munda (PW 1), who is also informant. There is no corroboration to the evidence of this witness by other witnesses. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that though the date of incident is 14th October, 1996, without any reason this solitary eye witness and other two supporting witnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW 4 have remained silent on 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th October, 1996 and at a much belated stage i.e. on 18th October, 1996 the First Information Report has been lodged. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that PW 1 has given more than one statements before the police, as per paragraph No. 13 of his deposition. What is stated in other two statements has not come on record before the trial court by the deposition of the Investigating Officer. In this case the Investigating Officer has not at all been examined as prosecution witness. Likewise there are no corroborative evidences to the deposition of PW 1 (Jagernath Munda). As per the deposition of PW 1, the deceased was initially assaulted by fists blows and knife blows for some time. Therefore, there must have been blood at the scene of offence. Neither any weapon has been recovered from any of the accused nor the blood sample has been collected. Thus, there is no corroboration of the evidence of PW 1 and it has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that after committing murder, there was no reason for the accused -appellants to go at the house of PW 2 and PW 4 to make proclamation or announcement that they have committed murder of the deceased. These two witnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW 4 are husband and wife. They are got up witnesses. PW 2 has stated in his cross -examination that he does not know who has committed murder of the deceased. The, depositions of these two witnesses are not reliable. In fact, the accused are innocent and have not committed any offence, much less murder of the deceased. Prosecution has also failed to prove motive. They were arrested immediately. Accused No. 2, who is appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 339 of 2001, was granted bail during the trial and accused No. 1, who is appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 269 of 2000, has undergone twelve and half years of imprisonment. In fact, the solitary eye witness is also not reliable because for no reason he remained silent for four days and only on 18th October, 1996 the First Information Report was registered and as there is no corroboration to the deposition of this witness (PW 1), he is not a reliable witness and, therefore, the conviction based upon the deposition of solitary eye witness deserves to be quashed and set aside.;