The reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of absconding as incriminating evidence, and the application of legal provisions under Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - This is an appeal by the convict (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.07.2016 delivered in Sessions Trial No.70 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur (Ganjam). By the said judgment, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of one Musa Das on 12.06.1999 at about 1 P.M. at village Gandala. Consequent upon the said conviction, the Appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- with default imprisonment of 6 (six) months. However, it has been noted clearly that the period of detention as undergone by the Appellant, shall stand set off from the substantive term of imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 12.06.1999 at about 1 P.M. at village Gandala, the Appellant had brutally assaulted Musa Das (the deceased) with deadly weapon. In the said assault, the deceased received several bleeding injuries. One Manoranjan Das (P.W.1), brother of the deceased informed the police orally of the occurrence. It has been disclosed in the oral report, as filed by Manoranjan Das that, on the day of occurrence at about 1 P.M., his niece, namely, Jalausha Das, the daughter of the deceased informed him that while she and her father were returning from village Sadasivpur after performing puja at Gramadevati, the Appellant forcibly dragged her father to the street from Panigrahi mango grove. Having been reported of the said occurrence by the daughter of the deceased, she and informant rushed to the spot and saw the deceased lying dead having bleeding injuries in front of the house of one Sadananda Sahu. Sadananda Sahu has not been examined in the trial. The informant's another brother, Lingaraj Das, came to the spot and he has stated the police that the Appellant hacked the deceased on several part of his body by a 'Tangia' for which, the deceased fell down on the ground. Even, thereafter, the Appellant dealt several blows on the face of the deceased by the said weapon and left the place. The deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Initially, the village Choukidar was reported of the occurrence. The village Chowkidar escorted the informant to the police station. On the basis of his oral report, the information was reduced in writing and a specific case was registered being Hinjili P.S. Case No.36 of 1999 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. (corresponding to G.R. Case No.143/1999). The investigation was taken up and the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut and the case was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chatrapur. Following the due process of cognizance, the charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate the charges framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C., the prosecution has adduced, as many as 7 (seven) witnesses, including the informant (P.W.1) and his brother (P.W.2) and also the daughter of the deceased (P.W.3). Apart that, 9 (nine) documentary evidence (Ext.1 to Ext.9) have been introduced by the prosecution. Four material objects (M.O.1 to M.O. IV) are also brought in the evidence. It may be noted that, at this juncture, no evidence was led by the defence after the prosecution evidence was recorded. The Appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(d) of the Cr.P.C. when he reiterated his plea of innocence and claimed that the evidence as laid by the prosecution are all concocted. Having appreciated the said evidence, the trial judge has returned the finding as follows:

'In this case as discussed earlier the P.W.3 is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. Her evidence is found cogent, convincing and credible which is supported by the medical evidence. No doubt she is the daughter of the deceased. In the facts and circumst