The consistent and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses, fully corroborated by medical evidence, can establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The rejection of a plea of alibi is justified based on the weakness of the defense evidence.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24February, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.132/87 of 1997-99 convicting both the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with 34 IPC in sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for the first mentioned offence and R.I. for six months for the second mentioned offences. During the pendency of the present appeal while Appellant No.2 was enlarged on bail by order dated 14th July, 2011 passed by this Court, Appellant No.1 was enlarged on bail by another order dated 29th July, 2011. By that time both the Appellants had spent more than ten years in jail.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 29th December, 1996 in the evening between 7 and 7:30 pm, Dubraj Oram (PW 8), the informant was coming back with his father, the deceased (Saheb Oram). The deceased had gone to Brajaraj Nagar colliery for some labor work. Since the father was in inebriated condition, PW 8 had gone to fetch him. While they were returning and crossing the house of Kirtan Naik (PW 3) at around 8 pm, they met both Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who were coming in the opposite direction. Upon seeing Appellant No.2, the deceased is stated to have embraced Appellant 2 (Lalit Oram) saying ‘nati nati’ i.e. ‘grandson, grandson’. According to PW 8, immediately both the Appellants started assaulting the deceased with fist blows and slaps. PW 8 then intervened and separated his father from them at which point Appellant No.1 dealt a blow with a torch light on the head of PW 8 and Appellant No.2 also dealt him a punch blow. Thereafter, the Appellants went inside the village and the informant and the deceased began returning to their residence.

3. At around 8:30 pm both the Appellants, each being armed with tangi ran towards PW 8 and the deceased. PW 8 then suggested to his father that he should run away from the spot. Both the Appellants are stated to have dealt successive blows to the head of the deceased with tangis. The deceased then fell down. In order to save himself, PW 8 concealed himself nearby ‘amari’ bush. In the version of PW 8, who lodged the FIR, both the Appellants then dragged the deceased to a ditch near a mahul tree, threw him there and ran towards Thelubandha with their tangis. This occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Gopal Oram, the uncle of PW 2 and his ‘Badabapa’, Lachhaman Oram (PW 9). Later, accompanied by PW 3 and certain others villagers, they all proceeded to the spot where the deceased was lying with three deep cuts on his forehead and head. Besides, the thumb and index finger of the left hand of the deceased was found amputated and he was found battling for his life. PW 8 offered water to the deceased but he could not take it. PW 8 removed the injured deceased to his house where he succumbed.

4. On 30th December, 1996 an FIR was lodged at the instance of PW 8 before the Officer-in-Charge, Loikera Police Station (PS). It is stated that because of fear of wild animals like bears and elephants and since the road from village Kelda to Kolabira is a jungle road, PW 8 could not come to the PS on the previous day i.e. the day of the incident.

5. On receipt of the FIR the police took up the investigation, held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the Appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The plea of Appellant No.1 was that the case was foisted against him. As far as Appellant No.2 Lalit Oram is concerned, he claimed that on 29December, 1996 he was on duty as a Guard in the District Intelligence Bureau (DIB) and functioning at the regional office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Jharsuguda. His further plea was that his signature was taken on blank papers by the police.

7. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. PWs 8 and 9 were projected