The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which requires consistent and reliable evidence, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and material evidence.

JUDGMENT

B. B. Mangalmurti, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7th November, 2006 and order of sentence dated 8th November, 2006 passed by Mohammed Kasim, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.90 of 2004 holding the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as also fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for two months with set off clause for the period already undergone during trial.

2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that the S.I., Madan Mohan Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Chandil P.S. recorded the fardbeyan of the Informant Boby Mahali,wife of Nimai Mahali on 30.05.2004 at about 16.00 hours stating therein that on 30.05.2004 at about 12.00 noon the informant was cutting wood for cooking purpose with an axe in front of her Indira Awas House. Her Bhaisur Ram Das Mahali was talking with co-villager Jubail Sawayan under the Imli tree at a distance of about 30 feet from the informant. Informant felt thirst and went inside the house to drink water leaving her axe outside the house with the wood. After some interval, she heard cry of her Bhaisur Ram Das Mahali, then she immediately came out of her house and saw that co-villager Jubail Sawayan using her axe was causing axe blow about four times on the neck of her Bhaisur. When she tried to intervene, the accused had caused serious injuries on the neck and ear side and on seeing the assemblage of villagers fled away on the south side of the village holding axe in his hand. When informant tried to extend medical treatment with the help of villagers but he died on the spot. The cause of incident is that her Bhaisur had taken Rupees three hundred from Jubail Sawayan for purchase of rice, and on demand for return of the same, altercation between them started and Jubail Sawayan used axe for killing her Bhaisur which was also seen by other villagers.

3. After submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance of offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session on 04.08.2004. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against sole appellant and prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses and have exhibited some documents as well as Material exhibits on their behalf whereas Defence has not examined any witness nor any documents were brought on record.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.l-Boby Mahali, Informant of this case, P.W.2- Gopal Gorai, seizure list witness, P.W.3-Kartik Gorai, P.W.4-Madan Mohan Singh, who recorded the fardeyan etc. and arrested the accused, P.W.5-Kamal Narayan Singh, I.O., P.W.6-Dr. A.K. Choudhary, P.W.7-Choudhary Prakash Narayan, who brought Material Exhibits and P.W.8-Chand Mukhi, another eye- witness of this case.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, following documents were exhibited. Exhibit 1-signature on new seizure list, Exhibit 2- Fardbeyan, Exhibit 3 and 3/1-Seizure list, Exhibit 4-Formal F.I.R., Exhibit 5-signature on post-mortem report.

6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that merely on the statement of one eye-witness i.e. P.W.l-Boby Mahali, the conviction has been made as other witnesses may be termed as hearsay witness. He further submitted that the injuries stated by the prosecution is not corroborated by the post-mortem report of the doctor. He further submitted that without proper appreciation of the evidence, the conviction is bad. He also submitted that seized Tangi was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory but no report was brought on record by the prosecution which creates doubt over the prosecution. Lastly, he has submitted that the intention was not to kill but on the spur of moment the occurrence took place.

7. Learned A.P.P. submitted that judgment of conviction has been arrived at on the basis of oral and documentary evidences. He also submitted