The reliability of eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence is crucial in establishing guilt, and any irregularity or illegality during investigation should not undermine the prosecution case if the evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Prasad Routray, J.

1. Both the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 221 of 1995, which is challenged before us in the present appeal.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, appellant No. 1, Manguli Rout and appellant No. 2 Khagi @Ekdasi Rout are two brothers. The deceased, namely, Subash and the informant, Jadunath (P.W.5) while going in a bicycle on 28.6.1994 at about 2.00 P.M. in the village road passing in front of the house of accused persons, they were assaulted by the appellants along with third accused namely, Jhari @ Jharana, the wife of appellant Manguli. It is alleged that Manguli came out suddenly, caught hold the handle of the bicycle and dragged the deceased, who was sitting on the back career of the bicycle. As the deceased fell down, accused Ekadasi being armed with kati came out from the house and started giving blows to the legs of the deceased with that Kati and at that time the accused Manguli also dealt axe blows on the deceased being supplied the axe by the 3rd accused, Jharana. In the meantime, hearing the shout, the informant and some co-villagers namely, Anadi (P.W.4), Brahmani (P.W.2), Bisweswar and others reached at the spot. The deceased being sustained with severe bleeding injuries was shifted to Maniabandha P.H.C. and then was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on the same day where he died in that night. As such, an U.D. Case was registered at Mangalabag Police Station in connection with the death of the deceased and inquest was held by Mangalabag Police in that U.D. Case. In the meantime, F.I.R. was also registered on 28.6.1994 at 3.15 P.M. in Badamba Police Station on the written report presented by P.W.5, Jadunath.

3. The appellants pleaded 'not guilty' and denied their involvement in the occurrence.

4. Learned trial court, on the evidence of seven prosecution witnesses and seven documents marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution, convicted the present appellants for the aforesaid offence of murder while acquitting the 3rd accused, Jhari@Jharana.

5. It is argued by Mr. Panda, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, that there is material discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.5 in view of the statement of P.W.7 (I.O.) that he presented the F.I.R. before him at 2.30 P.M. in the village and that, he has not stated anything about the blows given on the chest and leg by Manguli. Besides, there is omission of confrontation of material evidence to the appellants in their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Katikia, learned A.G.A, supporting the conviction of the appellants, has submitted that in view of clinching account of narration of occurrence by the informant and other eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws. 2, 4 & 5, the appellants have been clearly implicated as the assailants of the murder of the deceased and, as such, their conviction by the learned trial court is justified. It is further submitted by him that the learned court below has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.6, who ought to have been believed in view of his clear endorsement made in the inquest report (Ext.5) at column No. 9.

7. On the backdrop of the submissions advanced at the Bar, we carefully perused the impugned judgment as well as the lower court record. As seen from the trial court judgment, much reliance has been placed on the direct ocular evidence of P.W.5 to conclude the guilt on the appellants.

8. A thorough perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses reveals that P.W.5 is the eyewitness to the whole occurrence while P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence in part, who reached at the spot hearing the shout of P.W.5. However, the learned court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.6. Basing on such statements of P.Ws. 5, 2 and 4 of eye-witnessing