Judgment

B. Panigrahi, J. — The order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. passed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambal-pur in S.T. No. 17 of 1990 directing him to undergo imprisonment for life has been assailed in this appeal.

2. The prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R. is as follows:—

On 19-10-1989 at about 5.00 p.m. Padmabati Oram (P.W. 3), the daughter of the informant (P.W. 1) came to the informant’s house and narrated that the appellant was assaulting the deceased Tuni Dharua by means of a crow-bar. P.W. 1, his son and the brother of P.W. 4 came to the house of Padmabati and saw that Tuni Dharua was lying dead in front of the house of Padmabati in a pool of blood. There were bleeding injuries in his fore-head and back side of his head. P.W. 4 though gave some water to the deceased Tuni, but by that time he had succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 3 further informed her father that Tuni Dharua and Dubulu Raksa had come and sat on her verandah. After some talk appellant Dubulu had gone towards the village and had once again came back to the house of P.W. 3. After keeping his cycle by the side of the road, he had come near Tuni Dharua. There was altercation between the deceased and the appellant, in course of which Dubulu assaulted Tuni with a crow-bar as a result of which Tuni fell down on the ground. P.W. 1 having learnt about the incident reported about the occurrence to Mangulu Naik and Mahadev Padhan who also arrived at the spot and found Tuni lying dead. P.W. 1 along with other companions proceeded to Jharsuguda Police Station and lodged a report about the occur-rence on 19-11-1989. The police imme-diately thereafter took up investigation of the case, held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased and prepared the inquest report vide Exhibit-2, seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot vide Exhibit-11, sent the deadbody of the deceased for post-mortem examination, and arrested appellant. While in police custody, the appellant gave information disclosing that he had thrown the crow-bar in the grassy field towards the east of house of Padmabati and so saying he led the police and witnesses to the spot and gave recovery of one blood-stained crow-bar. The crow-bar which is said to have contained human blood was proved in the Trial Court as M.O.I, M.Os. II and III were the wearing apparels of the decea-sed. The doctor who conducted autopsy had opined that the injuries appearing on the deceased were anti-mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The I.O. on completion of investigation placed the charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. The defence plea was a comp-lete denial of the occurrence. However, the Trial Court on resume of the evidence on record held the appellant guilty of the charge of murder of Tuni.

4. In the F.I.R. though the prose-cution has narrated that the appellant assaulted by means of a crow-bar on the head of the deceased, all the wit-nesses examined by the prosecution have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. The only evidence surviving for considera-tion before the Trial Court was that of the Investigating Officer and the doctor. So far as the death of the deceased Tuni is concerned, there is no dispute that he met a homicidal death. Though the I.O. has stated that the appellant while in custody made a disclosure statement and led him to the seizure of the crow-bar, P.Ws. 10 and 11 who have been cited as witnesses to such seizure have not supported the prosecution case. There has been no corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of the crow-bar besides the evidence of P.W. 13. It is unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the solitary evidence of the police officer. Even the maker of the F.I.R. has turned hostile. The seizure witnesses have also not supported the facts of seizure. The so-called eye-witnesses such as P.Ws. 1 and 3 have not supported the prosecution