The court held that the evidence of eyewitnesses, extra-judicial confession, and forensic analysis was reliable and credible, and that the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the court found that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive and reduced it to the period already undergone.

DEEPAK MISRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal from Jail Ghasiram Lakra (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') calls in question the legality of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'i. P. C. ') and the sentence of imprisonment for ten years as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in S. T. Case No. 153/ 39 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE prosecution version as depicted during trial is as follows :-On 29-4-92 at about 8. 45 p. m. a telephonic message was received at Biramitrapur Police Station from the Octroi check-gate located at Talsara intimating that a man having been assaulted was lying senseless near the check-gate. The fact was entered in the Station Diary vide S. D. Entry No. 602 (Ext. 23) and the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 16) along with some other Police Officials immediatelyrushed to the spot. At the spot, the wife of the deceased (P. W. 12) reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector. As per her version, the deceased was in visiting terms to the house of lady named Damayanti alias Tuni 'singaldhipa'. The people of the said locality were suspecting illicit relationship between the deceased and Damayanti. On the date of occurrence at about 11. 30 a. m. , the deceased left the house for Rourkela and was scheduled to come back by the evening train. At about 7. 30 p. m. the train reached Biramitrapur. After some time of the arrival of the train, the brother of the informant (P. W. 14) came to her house and called her to go to their residence without ascribing any reason. Accordingly, she came to her father's house at Talasara, where she was informed by her mother that the accused had committed murder of her husband Manga near the Octroi check-gate. She came near the check-gate and found her husband lying dead afflicted with serious injuries. On arrival of the police she stated her complaint orally which was treated as F. I. R. (Ext. 3 ). The Investigating agency conducted the investigation and after completing the formalities ultimately submitted the charge-sheet, and the petitioner faced his trial.

( 3 ) THE accused denied the charges in totality.

( 4 ) IN order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and number of documents were also brought on record. The learned trial Judge took into consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 8, 9, 10 and 13 who were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and further taking into consideration the extra judicial confession of the accused before the younger brother of the deceased (P. W. 15) came to hold that the accused had assaulted the deceased but there was no premeditation to commit murder. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion he found the accused guilty under Section 304 (Part-I) and convicted him as aforesaid.

( 5 ) MISS. S. Panda the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has strenuously urged that the items of evidence on which strong reliance has been placed by the trial Court have no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Her submission is that the evidence of P. Ws. 8, 9, 10 and 13 are replete with inherent improbabilities and intrinsic discrepancies and, therefore, the said witnesses should have been regarded as untrustworthy. She has been severely critical of the acceptance of the extra-judicial confession as the aforesaid confession does not inspire confidence and apparently unnatural. She has highlighted when the confession has been made before a person who was the brother of the deceased, the same should have been discarded on the ground that the same was absolutely unbelievable. She has further submitted that the F. I. R. in question has been manipulated inasmuch as the statement has been deleted and report inserted. That apart, there is also over-writing and there is discrepancy with regard to the place where the F. I. R. was lodged. All taken together submission of Miss. Panda is that it is entirely suspicious and has to be carefully scanned. Her last submissio