JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

“A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society.”

-Dr. B.R Ambedkar

1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.158/2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ¹ [“IPC”] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.1998 at around 5:00 p.m. youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik of village Gundibali Luhakera, Police Station Sector-15, Rourkela in District Sundergarh died. The family members of Manobodha Naik claimed that she died on account of witchcraft practice by the deceased Puni Naik. It was then that the appellant and co-accused Udai Oram came to the house of Puni Naik, dragged her from her house and took her near the house of Manobodha Naik where they assaulted her severely by means of a lathi. The entire incident was witnessed by Sukra Naik (P.W.3), the daughter of Puni Naik. As the result of the deadly assault, Puni Naik died during the early hours of 18.02.1998.

3. On 18.02.1998, at 11:00 a.m., P.W.3 accompanied by her maternal uncle, Hrudananda Ganda went to the Police Station and gave the written complaint, based on the complaint, FIR No. 19 dated 18.02.1998 at Police Station Sector-15, Rourkela, District Sundargarh came to be registered against the appellant and the co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. On behalf of prosecution, as many as nine witnesses were examined; however, none was examined on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court basing its reliance on the eyewitness testimony of P.W.3, convicted the appellant and the co-accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment.

5. The High Court, in appeal preferred by the appellant, confirmed the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of the body of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.3 further corroborated the medical evidence. Holding that the case was one of direct evidence, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.

B. SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the sole eyewitness, i.e., P.W.3, being the relative of the deceased, is an interested witness and her testimony, in absence of corroboration by any independent witness, cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction.

7. Another contention raised is that the case of the appellant falls under the ambit of Section 304, Part I or Part II of the IPC as the act was committed on the account of grave and sudden provocation. Thus, lacking requisite intention to constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC

8. It was also submitted that there has been a delay in filing of the FIR against the appellant since the incident occurred on 17.02.1998; however, the FIR was lodged on 18.02.1998, the next day.

9. The appellant also disputes the testimony of P.W.3 primarily on the point where in her cross-examination she stated the time of the death of her mother to be around 12:00 p.m. or 1:00 a.m. during night. However, in the FIR the time of the death of the deceased was recorded as 5:00 p.m. Further, in her cross examination she stated that “Balku was holding axe and Udya was holding Badi”, whereas in the post-mortem report of the deceased, the doctors have not marked any injury which could be caused by an axe.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the testimony of P.W.3 cannot be discarded merely on the ground that she is related to the deceased. Also, since the testimony