The consistent evidence of the ocular witnesses and the medical opinion regarding the weapon of offence outweighed discrepancies in the evidence, leading to the court's decision to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J.- This jail criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order Dated 01.05.2003 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No.320 of 2001/21 of 2001 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Session 302, I.P.C. & sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.04.2001 at about 1.30 P.M. while preparation was going on for "Meru Puja" at Kamana temple of village Nagjharan, the accused-Appellant assaulted a minor boy, namely, Bijan of village Dahimal. As the deceased protested such action of the accused-Appellant, a quarrel ensued between them. The informant (P.W:2), Bisi Behera, Nari Bhoi Nari Dehury (P.W.6), Darpani Behera (P.W.1) & Kandarp Naik subsided the quarrel. At this, the accused-Appellant went away towards his house in an angry mood. At about 2 PM. he came with a 'tangia' (commonly) used for cutting the date palm tree) & dealt a blow to the neck of the deceased while he was sitting under the shade of a mango tree. As a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury & breathed his last. Thereafter, the incident was reported to the police on the basis of which a case was registered & investigation commenced. On closure of investigation, the, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-Appellant under Section 302, IPC & the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

2. During trial the Appellant took the plea of complete denial. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, examined as many as 11 witnesses including two investigating officers & the doctor & exhibited to documents. The defence examined none in support of its plea.

3. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge on conclusion of the trial convicted the accused-Appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC & sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life having placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9 as well as other circumstantial evidence available on record.

4. Mr. Rath, Learned Counsel for the Appellant assails the impugned Judgment on the following grounds:

(i) There is discrepancy with regard to the weapon of offence. The informant (P.W.2) in the FIR has mentioned that the weapon of offence is 'Katuri' whereas in his examination-in-chief has stated that it is a 'tangia'. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had seen the occurrence.

(ii) The weapon of offence has not been produced nor proved before the Court, for which the prosecution case is to be viewed with suspicion.

(iii) The doctor, who conducted autopsy, has admitted in cross-examination, that he had not examined the weapon of offence on the date of postmortem, that he had not specifically noted the name of the weapon & that he had not marked any blood stain on the weapon of offence. This admission by the postmortem doctor casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.

(iv) There are a lot of discrepancies between the ocular- evidence & the medical evidence, for which the conviction of the Appellant cannot be sustained.

5. Mr. Sk. Zafarullah, Learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently contends that there is no dispute with regard to the weapon of offence. It is clearly established from evidence of the witnesses that the accused gave a blow by a sharp cutting weapon which resulted in death of the deceased, even though there is minor discrepancy in their evidence with regard to the weapon of offence. P.Ws.3, 5 & 6 have specifically implicated the accused-Appellant as the assailant. P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5, & 9 have not only proved the motive behind the crime but also the intention of the accused. The evidence of the doctor (PW.8) gets corroboration from the oral evidence. Seizure of the 'Katari' by the I.O., as the weapon of offence, & the opinion of the medical officer, who conducted autopsy, that the injury can be possible by 'Katari', leaves no room for doubt about the weapon of offence. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfer