The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence, including eyewitness testimony and autopsy findings, to establish the cause of death and uphold a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

M. Papanna, J. - This Jail Criminal Appeal is against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. No. 186/49 of 1992. The learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The accused (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") was put up on trial basing on the following accusations.

He suspected the deceased to be a witch. Prior to the alleged occurrence he was suffering from ailment. His sister was also suffering from mental illness. He was working under a wrong notion that the deceased applied witchcraft to them. There was quarrel between them on the said issue on some occasion. It was referred to the village Panch. On 12.8.1992 the deceased had gone to a nearby well to take bath. At that time the Appellant came there. He assaulted on her head by means of a lathi. He dealt her kicks. Then he threw her into the well. As a result, she died. Husband of the deceased came to know about the occurrence from his children on his return from field. The deceased was brought out from the well. By then she was already dead. She had sustained injuries on the backside of her head. On his information Raibaga P.S. Case No. 24 of 1992 was registered. Police held inquest over her dead body during investigation. It was sent for autopsy. On completion of investigation, the Appellant was charge sheeted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The defence denied the prosecution allegations. Stand of the Appellant is that the deceased fell down in the well of her own accord. She died due to drowning. He has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. Evidence of nine witnesses has been pressed into service to prove the charge against the Appellant. P.W. 1 was an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 3 is a Photographer. P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure of incriminating articles. P.W. 5 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the mother of the accused. P.W. 7 is the Doctor. He conducted autopsy. P.W. 8 is an independent witness and P.W. 9 is the I.O.

5. No witness has been examined for the defence.

6. Relying on the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant and sentenced him as stated above.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the judgment impugned before us. According to him, the trial court has gone wrong in convicting the Appellant basing on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 5, who are not only interested witnesses but also they are inimical towards the Appellant. That apart, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence of the witnesses properly. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment.

8. In view of the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for both the parties, it is expedient and desirable to scan the evidence on record to see if there is any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in convicting the Appellant.

9. In a murder case, the Court has to find out whether the victim died a homicidal death. The Doctor (P.W. 7) has proved Post Mortem report (Ext. 11). Ext. 11 shows the following external injury:

(i) Lacerated wound 2 1/2" x 1" x bone deep at the centre of occiput on the back.

10. The dead body was dissected by P.W. 7. He found the following internal injury:

The occiput was fractured (compound and communited) over an area of 1 1/2" x 1". Collection of blood extra-durally over occipital region, base of skull extending to left parietal region posteriolly. Brain was congested and oedematous. Both lungs were congested. Oedematous and exude blood stained frothy fluid on cut Section. Heart was empty on both sides. The stomach contained semi digested food. Small intestine contained semi digested food and gas and large intestine contained feacal matter and gas. The liver, splean