The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'benefit of doubt' in criminal cases, where inconsistencies and doubts in the evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellants faced the Trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 14/85 of 1999 being charged for commission of offences under section-148/323/447/302/354/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Along with these Appellants, although five other accused persons had faced the said Trial, they have been convicted only for commission of offence under section-447 of the IPC.

The present Appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence under section-447 and 302 of the IPC; and convicted thereunder. The Appellants thereby have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under section-302 of IPC and for the offence under section-447 of the IPC, each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

The Appellants being aggrieved by the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the aforesaid Trial have filed this Appeal. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court having heard the Appeal delivered the judgment on 23.12.2020. The Bench delivered two judgments, while one of the Hon'ble Judges is of the opinion that the Appellants have been rightly convicted by the Trial Court for commission of offence under section 447 and 302 of the IPC; the other Hon'ble Judge has expressed the difference of opinion in arriving at a conclusion that the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as to their complicity in the occurrence and thus not liable to be convicted and sentenced for the charged offences. This is how; the matter has thus been laid before me as provided under section-370 read with 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

2. The facts having been comprehensively given in the judgments, I shall briefly touch only such as are necessary. The father of the Appellants on the relevant date, as alleged by the Prosecution was uprooting the southern side of the fence of their Bari. The deceased namely Jalandhar Dalbehera coming to protest, it is said that the accused Jalandhar Lenka, father of the Appellants abused him in filthy languages and called out other accused persons. They reached there with lethal weapons like Lathi and Muli etc. It is further alleged that then they made entry to the Bari of the deceased.

Further prosecution allegation is that all the accused persons dealt blows on the deceased by means of Lathi, Muli etc. and wife of the deceased (P.W.12) when came to protest, her saree was pulled by one of the accused. Son of the deceased (P.W. 11) had came to support to rescue his father. The deceased receiving blows from the accused persons fell down. The Appellants and other accused persons left the place as hearing the shout some villagers came rushing.

3. The nature of death as homicidal has been well proved from the side of prosecution by leading evidence; more importantly by the evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body and that is not so in dispute.

Prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused persons including the Appellants in the Trial has altogether examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses. It has projected P.W.5 to 9 and 11 & 12 to have seen the incident. Upon examination of the evidence and on their analysis the evidence of P.W.-5 to 9 in so far as their claim to have seen the incident have been eschewed from consideration being found to be not acceptable assigning good reasons being so culled out from the totality of the circumstances emerging from the evidence on record. A careful reading of the judgment of the Trial Court reveals that the evidence of P.W.10 to 13 have been taken into account in holding the Appellants guilty of the offences for commission of which they have been convicted.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset stressed much emphasis on the point that the Prosecution having failed to establish by leading clear, cogent and acceptable eviden