The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration and independent evidence in criminal cases, especially when the conviction is based on the sole testimony of a witness.

JUDGMENT :

C.R. Dash, J.

The sole convict is the appellant. He has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand), in default to suffer R.I. for further period of one year. The fine amount is directed to be paid to the informant-Bute Khora-P.W.2, daughter of the deceased and Kesu Khora, widow of the deceased as compensation under Section-357 of Cr. P.C.

2. The occurrence happened at about 9 P.M. in the night of 10.05.2013. Bute Khora (P.W.2) reported the matter in Pottangi Police Station on 11.05.2013 at about 10 A.M.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded shows that, in the previous night about 9 P.M., when the informant’s father Sandara Pangi was sleeping on the Varandah of his house, convict Pilku Pangi (present appellant) with his wife Bunde Pangi (since acquitted), started assaulting him. Hearing the sound of assault, she (informant) came out from the house and tried to free her father from the clutches of Pilku Pangi (appellant) and his wife Bunde Pangi. The informant was also assaulted by the culprits.

4. Regarding the manner of assault, it is alleged that, while Bunde Pangi caught hold of both the hands of the deceased from his back, the convict Pilku Pangi brought a Spade and dealt blows on the head and belly of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. It is further revealed from the report that the occurrence had been witnessed by the informant’s neighbor Pui Pangi (P.W.4). Out of fear, other villagers did not dare to come to the spot. Sometime thereafter, the informant went to call his cousins to come over the spot.

5. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.2, the matter was investigated into and both Pilku Pangi (appellant) and his wife (Bunde Pangi) were incriminated in the offence alleged and Charge Sheet was submitted against them for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

6. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication.

7. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in order to bring to home the charge framed against the accused persons. P.W.2 is the informant and eye witness to the occurrence, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are alleged eye witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 5 are witnesses to seizure, P.Ws.6 & 7 are witnesses to inquest over the dead body, P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body, P.Ws.8 & 10 are the Investigating Officers.

8. Learned court below has rightly come to the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. So far as the eye witnesses are concerned, it has been held in paragraph-8 of the impugned Judgment that, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 & 6 have not seen the occurrence of assault. In reaching such conclusion, learned trial Judge has cautiously and very fairly discussed the entire evidence of the aforesaid witnesses on record. The only witness, on which learned trial court has relied, is the evidence of Pui Pangi (P.W.4).

9. On discussion of the entire evidence on record, however, learned trial court has held that, prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Bunde Pangi (wife of the appellant) is involved in the alleged transaction and consequently, learned trial court has acquitted her.

10. Admittedly, the night of occurrence was a dark night. According to the spot map (Ext.7) and evidence of P.W.4, the distance between the spot, i.e., front Verandah of the house of the deceased and front Varandah of his (P.W.4)’s house is intervened by the village road of 15 ft. width. It is asserted by P.W.4 that, sitting on his Varandah, he has seen the occurrence of assault by the appellant.

According to P.W.2 (informant), who is none other than the daughter of the deceased, her father was sleeping on the front Varandah of their house.

11. Though, it is a dark night, learned court below has held thus:-

“Though the place is dark, but since both the accused and the deceased are his neighbours it would not be difficult on his part to see the incident and recognize them