The benefit of doubt should go in favor of the accused when relevant and incriminating evidence is not confronted to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard and the judgment is as follows:

The Respondent faced trial in S.T. Case No. 92 of 1991 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar on the allegations that on 13.6.1991 in Nimatandi Sahi, he committed murder of Birabar Mahanta, the deceased in this case, by dealing axe blows and causing injuries on his head.

2. To substantiate the charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence that (i) the accused had a grudge against the deceased for the latter refusing to part with his ration card (of essential commodities), (ii) on the date of occurrence while the deceased was tending cattle near the house of the accused, the latter called the former to his house, (iii) some time after going into the house of the accused, the deceased shouted for help and witnesses rushing to the spot saw the accused running away with the axe M.O.I and the deceased lying injured with bleeding from the head, (iv) the accused went and confined himself in the house of his brother-in-law Hiralal Sardar and did not respond to the call of the villagers or the witnesses and it is only the police, after their arrival, could bring him out of the room, (v) the accused was possessing the weapon of offence, i.e., M.O.I, till then and it was seized from his possession, (vi) his wearing apparel such as towel stained with blood together with blood-stained earth, sample earth and bloodstained clothing of the deceased were sent for chemical examination and serological test to trace origin and the group of the blood, (vii) the blood group of the accused is 'B' whereas blood group of deceased is 'O' and from the seized blood-stained articles including napkin of the accused 'O' group blood was found, (viii) the deceased made dying declaration before witnesses, viz., his father Chandra Mohan Mahanta (P.W.4) and Suratha Chandra Mahanta (P.W.6), (ix) the doctor (P.W.10) while conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to ante-mortem injuries.

3. In all, prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Amongst them, P.W. 9 is Dr. Usharani Das who attended to the deceased as a patient and P.W. 10 is Dr. Sudhiranjan Dash who conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report Ext. 18 besides the opinion report Ext. 19. P.W. 1 is the informant. P. Ws.1 to 6 are the witnesses to the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the deceased entering into the house of the accused and sustaining injuries there and the accused running away and from his possession the weapon of offence being recovered together with blood-stained cloth. P. Ws 7 and 8 are two police officers who participated in the investigation.

4. On analysis of the evidence, Learned Sessions Judge recorded the findings that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to the ante-mortem injuries. Such finding is not disputed by either of the parties while making their submissions in this forum. On perusal of the relevant evidence, as noted above, we also record the finding that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to the ante-mortem injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life.

5. Learned Sessions Judge discarded the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 about the dying declaration made by the deceased. In that respect, he referred to the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and stated that after sustaining the injuries the deceased became unconscious and therefore he could not have made dying declaration. The view expressed by the Trial Court in the above manner does not suffer from illegality or perversity. Therefore, notwithstanding the argument of the Learned Standing Counsel, we do not disturb that finding of the Trial Court.

6. Learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding that when the accused was inside the house of Hiralal Sardar together with the weapon of offence and till op