The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible testimony, medical evidence, and objective circumstances to establish guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

JUDGMENT

S.K.Mishra, J. - In this appeal, the sole appellant assails the judgment passed by the learned Adhoc. Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Malkangiri convicting him for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the 'Penal Code', and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in Criminal Trial No.2 of 2006, as per the judgment dated 26.07.2006.

2. On 15.06.2005, the accused had quarreled with the deceased at about 8 O' clock. Then, the accused shot the deceased by means of an arrow, which pierced the upper belly of the deceased. When he fell down, the appellant gave blows by means of a tangia, which he was holding. As a result of the assault, the deceased died at the spot. This incident was witnessed by one Buari Manguli. This matter was informed to P.W.6, Aita Madkami, who then went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased lying with an arrow pierced to his body and a bow and an axe lying there. On the next day, a report was lodged before the OIC, Malkangiri Police Station. The Investigating Officer registered the police case and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he examined the informant P.W.4, other witnesses, made several seizures, dispatched the dead body for post-mortem examination, collected material objects, sent them for chemical examination and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

3. The plea of defence was of complete denial.

4. To establish its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses on its behalf, led into evidence 18 documents as exhibits and three material objects. P.W.5, Mangala Madkami is the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.4, Ura Madkami, father of the deceased had lodged the FIR before the OIC, Malkangiri Police Station. P.W.6, Aita Madkami is a village elder, who after coming to know about the murder accompanied P.W.4 to the police station to lodge the FIR. P.W.2- Bijaya Kumar Biswas and P.W.3, Narasingh Dora are two police constables and are witnesses to the seizures. P.W.1, Dr. Laxmikanta Panigrahi had conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7, Prakash Kumar Rath is the Investigating Officer of the case.

The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness on its behalf and it also did not lead any documentary evidence in support of its case.

5. The learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion from the materials available on record like the deposition of P.W.1, Dr. Laxmikanta Panigrahi and the contents of the post-mortem examination i.e. Exhibit-1, the opinion rendered by the doctor on Exhibit-2, that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. He also came to the conclusion that the injuries found on the deceased can be caused by a sharp cutting weapon and the head injury is possible by sharp cutting weapon i.e. arrow and tangia, respectively.

6. At this stage, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the dead body subjected to post-mortem examination and the results of the examination of the material objects i.e. weapons of offence M.Os. I to III to be the possible weapon with which the injuries were inflicted. A careful examination of the documents and the evidence of P.W.1 also leave no doubt in mind of this Court that such findings of the learned trial Judge do not require any interference.

7. Basing on the evidence of the sole eye-witness P.W.5 and attending circumstances like finding blood from the wearing apparels of the deceased having the same blood group as the blood stained found on the bow and arrow, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.

8. Mr. Mahana, learned counsel for the appellant assailing the conviction submitted that the sole eye-witness P.W.5 is a stock witne