The reliability of witness testimony and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. In this appeal under the provision of Sec. 383 Cr.P.C. the sole appellant has assailed his conviction U/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.') and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer further S.I. for one month, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in his judgment dtd. 27.03.2004 passed in S.T. Case No. 14/64 of 2003.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that there was land dispute between the deceased - Gudura Tudu and his brother accused - Raghu Tudu. On 11.10.2002 at about 7 A.M. deceased went to plough his land which is nearby his house and he was ploughing it. At that time appellant Raghu and other two acquitted accused persons, namely Surdhan Tudu and Jagadish Tudu who are his sons, went in a group to the said land and the appellant Raghu killed the deceased by cutting his throat by a knife with the assistance of other two accused persons. The informant, who is son of the deceased heard cry of his father and rushed to the land and saw that appellant, holding a knife and the other two accused persons got up from the place where his father was lying and fled away towards the nearby forest. He raised hulla and some of the villagers gathered there. He informed the incident to them and went to Jharadihi Out Post and lodged F.I.R. being scribed by another person and the investigation commenced. During course of investigation police recovered the weapon of offence, i.e. knife on the information given by the appellant Raghu while in custody and also seized the wearing apparels of accused Raghu along with the knife and the wearing apparels of the deceased and sent those for chemical examination. The chemical examination report reveals presence of human blood of 'B' group on the wearing apparels of the deceased and in the napkin seized from the appellant Raghu. Human blood was also detected in the knife and bunion of Raghu whose blood group could not be ascertained. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and two other accused persons U/s. 302/34 I.P.C.

3. Defence took the plea of denial and false implication.

4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 10 and proved 17 documents. P.W. 1 is the informant, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 8 are the post occurrence witnesses, P.Ws. 5 and 6 are police constables and witnesses to the seizure. P.W. 7 is the O.I.C., Tiring Police Station who has partly investigated the case. P.W. 9 is the I.O. and P.W. 10 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The seized knife is marked as M.O.I. Defence examined none.

5. Out of three accused persons, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted only the appellant Raghu Tudu and acquitted other two accused persons Surdhan Tudu and Jagadish Tudu. In addition to the narration of eye witness - P.W. 1, prosecution also relied upon discovery of weapon of offence, i.e. knife which was stained with blood and also presence of blood of group 'B' in the napkin of the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the version of the eye witness cannot be believed because of the major contradiction that has been brought out by the defence and for that the appeal should be allowed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.

P.W. 1 has stated that about a year back from the date of his deposition in the court, at about 7 A.M. his father had gone to plough their land which is near their house. Hearing cry of his father, he rushed near the spot and found the three accused persons were present there and his father was lying on the ground. The accused Raghu who happens to be his uncle was cutting the neck of his father by a knife. When he rushed to his father, they fled away from the spot. His father sustained bleeding injuries and died at the spot. He thereafter lodged a report before the O.I.C., Jharadihi Out Post and i