The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to convict an accused, as well as the need for the circumstances to lead to only one conclusion, excluding all others.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th April, 2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in Sessions Trial No. 427 of 2009, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd June, 2009 at around 11.30 pm, the Appellant entered into the house of his father (Ganesh Dash) at village Lochapada Bada Sahi, picked up a quarrel with him and began assaulting him. The younger son of Ganesh Dash and the brother of the Appellant, Raj Sekhar Dash intervened following which the Appellant got incensed and stabbed the deceased Raj Sekhar Dash with a knife, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on his chest and other part of his body. The deceased was immediately shifted to the MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, but was declared brought dead by the doctor.

3. The case of the prosecution further is that while in custody, the accused led the police and witnesses to the place of concealment of the weapon of offence and helped it get recovered. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was led against the Appellant. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses whereas none was examined by the defence.

5. The trial Court approached the entire case as one of circumstantial evidence, without any eye witness. The following circumstances were culled out by the trial Court as forming a continuous chain and having been proved by the prosecution:

(i) The Appellant was last seen with the deceased and this was proved by the evidence of Ganesh Dash (PW-2) (the father of the Appellant) and Urmila Dash (PW-3) (the mother).

(ii) PW-4, who was the post-occurrence witness, reached the spot on receiving information from his father and saw the deceased lying with injuries and took him to the hospital in his motorcycle with the help of PW-2.

(iii) In terms of the disclosure made by the Appellant while in custody, he led the police to get the weapon of the offence i.e. the knife recovered from underneath a stone in the Agana (courtyard of his house). This was witnessed by Mohan Patra and Anantaram Behera.

(iv) The evidence of Dr. Geeta Sahu (PW-1), who conducted the autopsy on the deceased, found five external injuries and six internal injuries. She opined that injuries 1 and 2 could have been produced by a hard and blunt force impact and injuries 3 to 5 by a sharp and pointed weapon. One of the external injuries was a punctured lacerated wound of oval shape of size 1 cm x 0.75 cm in the left chest cavity deep just below xiphisternum. The medical evidence proved that the death was homicidal.

6. According to the trial Court, all of the above circumstances formed a continuous chain and were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The conclusion was that it pointed out the guilt of the accused and to no one else. On that basis, the trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

8. Mr. Nrusingha Nanda Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant makes the following submissions:

(a) The versions of PWs. 2, 3 and 8 were exaggerated and unreliable.

(b) The FIR mentioned that the deceased died after being injured by the Appellant by a barber’s razor whereas what was recovered as a weapon of offence was a knife, which is very different. The medical evidence only showed that injuries could have been caused by a knife. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Mohar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 1578 to contend that the ocular evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence with regard to the weapon of offence.

(c) None of the neighbours, who arrived at the place of occurrence hearing the shout of PW-2, was examined by the prosecution. The last seen theory was falsif