The probative value of a relative witness and the scrutiny of interested testimony are crucial in evaluating the credibility of witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 30th October, 2000 passed in S.C. No.29 of 1998 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur for being convicted under Section 302 IPC and other offences on the grounds inter alia that the findings to be unjustified and hence, liable to be set aside followed by an order of acquittal.

2. The Appellants having been charged under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 IPC and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act were made to face trial. Finally, the learned court below returned with a finding of guilt against the Appellants and convicted them under Section 302 IPC with other offences however acquitting them of the offence punishable under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act and consequently sentenced each to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC without any separate sentences for the rest of the offences.

3. The informant lodged the FIR on 9th October, 1997 alleging therein that on that day at about 10.20 a.m. while his deceased brother was at his medicine shop, at that time, the Appellants and others being armed with sword, kati and bombs attacked and killed him at the spot. After the FIR was lodged, K.S. Nagar P.S. Case No.104(6) dated 9th October, 1997 was registered. Finally, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellants and five others under the alleged offences to stand their trial in the court of law. The learned court below framed charges against the Appellants and thereafter, received evidence during trial and ultimately, convicted them of the alleged offences.

4. The plea of the Appellants is of denial and false implication.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.

6. The prosecution story is that on 9th October, 1997 at about 10.20 a.m., the deceased was inside his medical shop and at that time, one Ambassador car arrived and stopped in front of it and seven persons including the Appellants got down from the vehicle being armed with sword and bombs and went inside the shop and assaulted the victim, who out of fear ran from there but was chased by them and was finally killed at the spot. The brother of the deceased lodged the FIR few hours after the alleged incident. The informant named the Appellants and nine others in the FIR by claiming that all of them combinedly killed the deceased.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution besides examining witnesses relied upon sixteen documents and some material objects. However, the defence did not lead any evidence. Considering the evidence of the prosecution, the learned court below reached at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the Appellants.

8. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution which the learned court below overlooked. It is further contended that the informant being the brother of the deceased falsely implicated the Appellants, the fact which was lost sight of by the court below and that apart, some independent witnesses were not examined and no clear motive could be revealed but still the learned court below convicted them which is not legally tenable. On the other hand, the learned ASC contended that the evidence of the prosecution clearly proved and established the involvement of the Appellants in the killing of the deceased and even if the informant is related to the victim, his evidence could not have been entirely brushed aside, as he was most unlikely to falsely implicate someone other than the real culprits. It is further contended that the evidence has been cogent and credible which connected the Appellants with the alleged incident and therefore, the order of conviction suffers from no illegality and therefore, calls for no interference.

9. The learned defence counsel by contending that independent witnesses have not been examined though were available cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj