The importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal filed by the State calls in question the order of acquittal of all the respondents of the offence u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and respondent Prasanna alias Santosh Kumar Panda of the offence u/s 302/109 IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in S.T. Case No. 122-D of 1988.

2. The prosecution story, as described in course of the trial, is as follows :

Deceased Bidyut Bhusan Patnaik was working as a Plantation Assistant in the Analabarene Cashew Plantation operated by the Cashew Development Corporation of Orissa, While discharging his duties, he used to prevent theft of cashew-nuts from the plantation. Prior to the incident, he had also reported against the present respondents for committing theft of cashew-nuts. Respondent Santosh is alleged to have intervened and dissuaded the deceased from taking any action against the culprits, who belonged to the neighbouring villages, for committirig theft of cashew-nuts from the plantation. Thus, the respondents were inimical towards the deceased, as the latter had taken action in preventing them from committing theft of cashew-nuts. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 5.5.1988, the deceased had gone to Dhenkanal to deliver cashew-nuts and returned to the plantation at about 3.00 P.M. At about 4.00 P.M., he went to the local market on his bicycle. As he did not return in time, there was a search to trace him out by his colleagues, who were working in the plantation, but to no avail. On the following day, at about 3.00 P.M., his dead body was found lying inside the plantation with his bicycle after extensive search undertaken by the employees of the cashew plantation with the assistance of the police and the Gram Rakhi. Accordingly, a report was lodged at Kamakshyanagar police-station. In the report, the names of the respondents had been described as the suspects. The O.I.C., Kamakshyanagar police-station (P.W. 17), took up investigation, seized the bicycle, the bag and Ors. belongings of the deceased, a few leaves stained with blood on which the dead body was lying, held inquest over the dead body of Bidyut and despatched the same for post-mortem examination, and seized some incriminating letters from the Divisional Manager of Cashew Development Corporation (P.W. 5) pertaining to complicity of the respondents in the pilferage of pashew-nuts from the plantation. Accordingly, all the respondents except Santosh were arrested and sent to judicial custody. Respondent Santosh, however, surrendered in court. As it was alleged that P.W. 17 did not conduct investigation properly, the investigation was entrusted to the Crime Branch. In course of investigation, the Crime Branch seized an incriminating letter stated to have been written by respondent Udaya Naik and examined Ganeswar Pradhan (P.W. 1), who is said to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Crime Branch against the respondents.

3. The defence plea was one of complete denial and the false implication of the respondents in the case.

4. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses in all. The statement of P.W. 1 in court is vital for appreciating the case of the prosecution in so far as the complicity of the respondents is concerned. P.Ws. 2, 5, 6, 9 and 15 are the employees of the Cashew Development Corporation. P.W. 3 was the lessee of the cashew field in question in the year 1987. P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure. P.Ws, 17 and 18 are the investigating officers. P.W. 19 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Bidyut. In course of trial, P.Ws. 4, 6, 9 and 10 turned hostile and P.W. 11 did not support any aspect of the prosecution case. Consequently, their evidence is of no avail to the prosecution.

5. To sustain the charge against the respondents, utmost reliance was placed on the testimony of P.W. 1, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence on the fateful evening. Ac