The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence, consistency, and credibility of testimonies in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th September, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Angul convicting the Appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC in Sessions Trial No.74 of 1994/18 of 1998 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. It must be mentioned at the outset that during the pendency of the present appeal, Appellant Nos.3, 4 and 5 expired and the appeals as far as they were concerned stood abated. The Appellants in the fray are Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 6 to 10 and are herein referred to in the same order in which they were arraigned as accused i.e. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 to 10 (A1, A2 and A6 to A10 respectively).

3. The case of the prosecution is that at around 8 am on 23rd May 1994 at village Kanjara in the house of Trinath Pradhan (P.W.3), the accused intentionally committed the murder of the deceased Biswamitra Behera in furtherance of their common intention. The case of the prosecution further is that prior to the said incident there was a dispute between the accused persons and the deceased with one Tapan Sahu, son of Srinibas Sahu (A1) misbehaving with Umakanti, the daughter of the deceased Biswamitra Behera, with whom he is stated to have had an affair. A meeting had been called in the village, but no settlement could be reached.

4. It is stated that on the date of the occurrence while the deceased was cutting wood, Tapan went to his house presumably to attack him. The deceased is said to have chased Tapan with a Tangia in his hand and assaulted Tapan in the shop of Debarchan Rana (D.W.1). When Baidyanath Sahu (A6) went there, the deceased is said to have assaulted him as well. Thereafter, all the accused persons got together armed with lathis and Tangia and chased the deceased. Out of fear, the deceased entered the house of P.W.3 who at that time was sitting at a betel shop of Satrughan Sahu (D.W.2). Thereafter, the accused Srinibas Sahu (A1), Subal Sahu (A7) asked P.W.3 who was at the betel shop of D.W.2 to bring the deceased from out of his house. Thereafter, all the accused persons entered the house of P.W.3 and assaulted the deceased. When P.W.3 entered his house, he saw the deceased lying dead with bleeding injuries in the courtyard. He then reported the incident to the police. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against all the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and five on behalf of the defence. The trial court in the impugned judgment dated 14th September 2001 analyzed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove the case against each of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court accordingly proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants submitted as under:

(i) Although the prosecution projected Sukanti (P.W.5), the wife of P.W.3 and daughter-in-law of PW 4 as an eye-witness to the incident, she was a completely unreliable witness. Her statement that she viewed the incident from the kitchen of the house of the neighbour Ramesh Chandra Pradhan (D.W.3) was improbable as she appeared for the first time in the court and never spoke to the police earlier. In her cross-examination, she made an admission to this effect.

(ii) According to P.W.5, A1 and A6 were inside the house and the others stood on the veranda and she could not have seen such occurrence from the kitchen of D.W.3 because of the location of the house. While in her examination-in-chief, she named all the accused as being armed and entering her house, in the cross-