The testimonies of injured eye witnesses and the recovery of the weapon of offence hold special evidentiary status and can be relied upon to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT

Chittaranjan Dash, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Bargarh in S.T. Case No.100/8 of 2001 wherein the Appellants, namely, Sarathi Mohapatra, Rajendra Mohapatra and Rajkumar @ Raju have been found guilty in the offence U/s.302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Further the Appellant Sarathi Mohapatra has been found guilty of the offence U/s.324 IPC and has been additionally sentenced to RI for two years with a further direction that the sentences will run concurrently.

2. The background facts are that on 19th August, 2000 the wife of deceased Thakur Mohapatra, namely, Kamini Mohapatra asked Sita Mohapatra, wife of Appellant Sarathi Mohapatra to pay Rs.42/- towards the credit Sita had taken from Kamini's shop. On the denial by Sita, there ensued a quarrel between Kamini and Sita. Appellant Sarathi Mohapatra having appeared at the spot abused the family members of Thakur Mohapatra and Anand Mohapatra using obscene language. Anand Mohapatra, the deceased, interfered and asked them to maintain silence and disperse whereas Appellant, Rajendra appeared on the spot and challenged Kamini as to why she asked for money and took a vow that he would do away with the lives of the members of the two families within fifteen days.

3. It is alleged that on the next day in the morning at about 6.30 a.m. while Thakur Mohapatra, the deceased was going to water his land, near a canal at Metakani square, the Appellant, Rajkumar seeing him challenged as to what money was being asked from Sita on the previous night and dealt a blow by means of spade on Thakur Mohapatra. As a result Thakur Mohapatra fell down on the ground. Kamini Mohapatra and Jayanti Mohapatra who were a little away to attend the call of nature, rushed to the spot. At this time, however, the three Appellants besides Dhulu Mohapatra and Sagar Mohapatra arrived there being armed with knife and gupti and started assaulting Thakur Mohapatra. Anand Mohapatra who too had reached by then at the spot was assaulted by means of knife, spade and gupti causing severe bleeding injuries to Thakur Mohapatra and Anand Mohapatra whereby both the brothers succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

4. It is further alleged that seeing her husband assaulted, when Kamini Mohapatra intervened, she was assaulted by appellant Sarathi by means of gupti thereby Kamini received a cut injury to her palm. Having heard about the incident, Sanu Mohapatra @ Ramesh, the informant arrived there and after ascertaining the details of the incident from Kamini Mohapatra, his aunt, lodged a written report before the Bheden Police Station.

5. On the basis of the report, the police registered the case and took up investigation. In course of investigation, the IO held the inquest over the dead bodies and sent the same for post mortem examination. He examined the witnesses and seized the spade left at the spot and returned to the police station where the Appellants, namely, Sarathi Mohapatra and Rajendra Mohapatra were present and submitted an FIR against the family members of the deceased persons which too was registered vide Bheden P.S. Case No.50 of 2000. Both the Appellants got arrested in the Police Station where their wearing apparels were also seized.

6. Being in police custody, the Appellant Sarathi Mohapatra volunteered to point out the place of concealment of the weapon of offence which was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of witnesses. Contemporaneous to the statement, Appellant Sarathi led the police and the witnesses to the place of concealment i.e. the rear of his house in village Thanapati Tikra and got recovered the 'gupti' which was then seized. The police also arrested Dhulu Mohapatra and Sagar Mohapatra.

7. Injured Kamini Mohapatra was medically examined. The post mortem report as well as the injury repor