The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible witness testimonies and medical evidence to support the conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the Judgment is as follows.

2. Appellants are six in number. They faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 28/277 of 1994 in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Puri on the charges for the offence under Sections 396, IPC read with Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act, 1984. Rabi Panda is the deceased and hereinafter to as such. Sumitra Dei, P.W.8 is his widow. Jagannath Panda, P.W.9 is his father, Niranjan Panda, P.W.9 is his brother and Chaanda Panda, P.W.3 is his aunt (paternal uncle's wife).

3. According to the case of the prosecution, there was dispute and litigations between the family members of the deceased and the accused persons, and in view of that accused Swapneswar Panda had taken a vow to extinct the family of the deceased. According to the further case of the prosecution, in the night between 17th/18th September, 1993 the occurrence took place during the mid-night. The accused persons being variously armed, attacked the house of the deceased. Then accused Bijaya Panda was holding a 'Bhujali' and accused Swapneswar Panda was holding a 'Farsa' and also carrying a bag containing bombs. The other accused persons were also variously armed. On hearing sound of explosion of bomb, P.W.3 woke up and saw by the help of torch light focused by someone that accused Bijaya and Sapani @ Swapneswar being armed in the above manner were close to her bed. She shouted for help and accused Bijaya gave a farsa blow which injured her elbow. Accused Bijaya and Sapani robbed her ornaments 'Goda Khadu' and 'Naka Fula'. On hearing the shout of P.W.3 when P.W.8 opened the door of her room wherein a lantern was burning, by then the deceased and P.W.9 had also arrived at the spot. Accused Bijaya and Sapani inflicted injuries to the deceased by means of 'Bhujali' and threw bomb. Thus, accused Niranjan left the spot to escape from injuries. Similarly, P.W.5 also arrived at the spot but he was dissuaded by throwing bombs. Later on he came and found his son lying dead. On hearing the sound Of explosion of bomb, the neighbours like Brajabandhu Das, P.W.1, Dayanidhi Panda, P.W.2, and Ananda Chandra Panda, P.W.4 came out from their houses and focused their torch light and found accused Bijaya and Sapani being armed in the above indicated manner were present in the occurrence house, i.e., house of the deceased. They could not venture to intervene, because someone amongst the culprits threw brick-bats which hit P.W.1 and the other witnesses got terrified because of explosion of bomb. Accused persons also robbed P.W.8 and removed her gold necklace and 'Kana Fasia' and also injured her in that process. Because of the aforesaid incident each of P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 9 received some injuries. On police requisition they were examined by Dr. Dhaneswar Pradhan (P.W.7), who granted Injury Certificates marked Exts. 2, 5, 4 and 3 respectively.

4. The occurrence village, as per the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 6/4), situates at a distance of 14 kilometers. P.W.9 got the F.I.R. scribed by his brother-in-law Nityananda and lodged the report at Fategarh Police Station at 6.00 a.m. Ext. 6 is that F.I.R. with relevant entries of the O.I.C. and signature of the scribe as well as the informant, P.W.9. Registering the P.S. Case, the Investigating Officer, P.W.11 immediately took up the investigation. He visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body and despatched the dead body for post mortem examination together with the requisition for examination of the injured persons by the doctor. He prepared the spot map, made spot verification and searched the house of the accused persons but neither found the accused nor any of the incriminating materials. According to the prosecution, accused persons, who had absconded, were arrested on different dates and one of them ultimately surrendered in the Court directly. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and on being committed to the Court of