JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

In this appeal, the appellant-Sanjit Mandal being the convict in Sessions Case No.67 of 1999 (SC No.306/97 of Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore) of the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri assails the judgment dated 20.06.2000, whereby he has been convicted for the offence U/s. 457 and 302 of the IPC (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.” for brevity) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Case of the prosecution in short is that one Ananda Sarkar of village M.V.82 lodged a report on 17.07.1997 at about 2 A.M. before the O.I.C., Motu Police Station to the effect that on 16.07.1997 night on a Wednesday, his brother Govinda Sarkar, aged about 23 years, was sleeping in his Book Shop in the Bazar. At about 11.30 P.M., one Parimal Sarkar called him and told him that Govinda is dead and hearing this news, he came running and found a gathering there. He entered into the shop and found the dead body was lying with full of blood and there were injuries on the neck, back, head and hand. He came to know from Jadunath that at about 10 P.M., his brother Govinda and accused Sanjit Mandal were talking on the backside of the Shop. The prosecution further alleged that the accused was not pulling well with his brother due to the reason that 4 years back, the sister of the accused namely Krishna was in love with deceased-Govinda. He agreed for the marriage but the father of Krishna did not agree. Thereafter, Krishna died taking poison. From that day, the accused was not pulling well with Govinda. So, he suspected that the accused might have murdered his brother. He and others went to the house of the accused and found that the accused was absent from his house. He was also absent from the village. So, the informant suspected that the accused after murdering his brother left the village. On the written report of the informant Motu P.S. Case No.13/97 was registered and the matter was investigated. After investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 457 and 302 of IPC. Hence, the accused faced trial for the aforesaid offences.

The plea of the accused is one of complete denial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 15 (fifteen) witnesses. P.W.3-Ananda Kumar Sarkar is the informant in this case. P.W.11 is the scribe of F.I.R.

3.(a) P.W.1 is the Doctor, Ramakanta Panda, who has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer of this case and P.W.15 is the Police Officer before whom the appellant allegedly surrendered and produced the weapon of offence i.e. one sickle and his wearing apparels. Rest of the witnesses were either post-occurrence witnesses or formal witnesses.

No witness has been examined on behalf of defence.

3.(b) Admittedly, this case is based upon the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence in the shape of narration of any eye-witness.

4. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. This aspect is not challenged by the appellant. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 and the post-mortem report well proves that the deceased died of several injuries on his person which could have been inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon. The Doctor has also opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. That aspect need not be disturbed in this appeal.

4.(a) As far as the complicity of the appellant in the crime is concerned, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has relied upon following circumstances to record conviction of the appellant. These are as follows:-

i. There was prior enmity between the accused and the deceased.

ii. The accused had motive to murder the deceased.

iii. The accused after the occurrence, was found absent from his house and from the village.

iv. He was also found absent from the place where he was sleeping prior to the occurrence.

v. He