The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law, and the absence of motive does not weaken the case if there is clear and unambiguous direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai in Sessions Trial No. 3/78 of 2001-2004 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year. Although the Appellant was also found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 459/307/324 IPC, he was not separately sentenced for those offences.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13th August, 2000 at around 11 P.M. in the night, while Yudhistir Bhainsa (PW-13) was sleeping on a cot lying on the verandah of his house, his wife, the deceased Mukta Bhainsa, was sleeping on the floor on the said verandah near him. The accused being armed with a Budia (axe) entered into their house and assaulted the deceased Mukta Bhainsa with it. On hearing the scream of the deceased, PW-13 woke up and at that point the accused also assaulted him with the said Budia. Hearing the hue and cry of both Yudhistir Bhainsa and Mukta Bhainsa, Rajendra Kumar Mahakud (PW-1), the informant, the son-in-law of Yudhistir Bhainsa as well as Golap Mahakud (PW-2), the daughter of Yudhistir Bhainsa, who was sleeping in the adjoining room, came out of that room. They noticed the accused ran away from the house. They found bleeding injuries on Yudhistir and Mukta.

3. On being asked by PW-1, PW-13 told him that the accused had assaulted Mukta Bhainsa by means of an axe on her head and hand and assaulted him on his head, leg and back with the said axe.

4. PW-1 then informed the matter to the Rohit Sethy (PW-10), Hatia, Basanta Rana (PW-4) and others of his village, who reached the spot. Both the deceased and PW-13 were shifted to a hospital and the matter was reported to the Tikayatpali Police Station (PS), where it was registered as P.S. Case No. 21 of 2000.

5. On the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The defence examined no witness. The trial Court on an analysis of the evidence found that the prosecution had proved the case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict the Appellant for the offence aforementioned and sentenced him accordingly.

7. This Court heard the submissions of Ms. Tapaswini Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

8. Ms. Sinha submitted as under:

(i) Although PW-13 was projected as an injured eye-witness, he was unreliable and his deposition was unnatural. His evidence was also not corroborated by other independent evidence. He had actually not seen the assault on the deceased and, therefore, his deposition could not form the basis for the conviction.

(ii) There is a delay in the examination of the key eye-witness, PW-13. Although the incident took place on 13th August 2000, the FIR was lodged only on 14th August, 2000 on which date the inquest took place in the presence of PW-13. The Investigating Officer (IO) PW-15 disclosed that he had examined PW-13 only on 16th August, 2000. This delay weakened the case of the prosecution.

(iii) Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 had actually seen the occurrence. They were also interested witnesses being related to the deceased and the injured. Accordingly, their evidence was not reliable.

(iv) Amin @ Anadi Pradhan (PW-3) was also not a reliable witness. The accused is stated to have made an extra judicial confession before him about assaulting his uncle (PW-13) and aunt (deceased) with an axe and yet, PW-3 allowed him to sleep in his house. The said extra judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and should not be relied upon unless there was corroboration by independent evidence. The conduct of PW-3 about not informing the family members of the deceased about t