The central legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a strong motive does not weaken the case when there is clear and reliable evidence of eyewitnesses, and the nature of the offence is determined by the accused's knowledge and intention to kill.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st August 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T. No. 3 of 2003 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Appellant, who is a panel counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee informs the Court that by order dated 5th October, 2012 the Appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. By this time, the Appellant who had been admitted to the Special Sub-Jail, Talcher on 2nd July, 2002 as an under-trial prisoner had continued in jail custody for more than ten years. At the hearing on 20th October, 2020 this Court stayed the realization of the fine. Since it was not clear whether the Appellant had been released on bail, a report was called for from the Special Sub-Jail, Talcher. A report dated 12th November, 2020 was received from the Superintendent, Special Sub-Jail, Talcher confirming that the Appellant had indeed been released on bail on 20th October, 2012 and was residing in his village with his family. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 7th April, 2022, the Appellant was present in Court on 28th June, 2022.

3. This Court has heard the submissions of Ms. Manasi Das, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Appellant had a quarrel with the deceased Punia and his wife and had borne a grudge. On 30th June, 2002 at about 11:30 a.m. when Punia Dehuri was walking down on the village road, the Appellant was sitting nearby, went and stabbed Punia by a knife on his right chest. The victim then shouted that the Appellant had assaulted him and held a napkin on the wound and tried to go towards his house. However, the victim fell down on the ground after a few yards. The wife and the brother (PW-2) of the victim and certain others rushed to the spot. The victim stated that the accused had assaulted him and died at the spot. The brother of the victim submitted a written report at the Rengali Dam site Police Station at around 12:15 p.m. Then PS Case No. 24 of 2002 was registered under Section 302 IPC.

5. The very next date the Appellant was arrested and while in police custody, he made a statement which led the police to recover the knife used in committing the offence which he had concealed in the room used for keeping statues belonging to one Abhi Mohapatra. The opinion of the autopsy doctor was obtained. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses whereas none were examined for the defence.

6. The principal witnesses were Dolagobinda Mohapatra (PW-1) who was the occurrence witness and Tirtha Dehury (PW-2), the brother of the victim, who is stated to have witnessed the occurrence. The post occurrence witnesses were Kusa Samal (PW-3) and Rukmuni Dehury (PW-4) the wife of the deceased. Of the remaining witnesses, PWs. 5 to 8 turned hostile. Dr. Purnima Udgata (PW-10), was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. Saraswati Dhir (PW-11) was the seizure witness and Maheswar Patra (PW-13) the witness to the statement made by the Appellant while in custody which led to recovery of the weapon of offence. PW-14 was another seizure witness. Both Prasanna Kumar Rout (PW-16) and Nirod Kumar Nayak (PW-17), were the Investigating Officers (IOs).

7. The trial Court has on an analysis of the evidence concluded that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It proceeded to convict him and sentence him by the impugned judgment in the manner already