The reliability of the injured eye-witnesses' testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 25th October 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.37/12 of 1998 convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Additionally, Appellants Kalia Bag and Bidyadhar Bag (A3 and A4 respectively) were convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC respectively. No separate sentence however was passed for those offences.

2. It requires to be noted at the outset that on 26th April 2007, Appellant No.4 was released on bail. By another order dated 1st October 2007, the remaining three Appellants were enlarged on bail.

3. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged at the Patnagarh Police Station (PS) on 9th November 1997 by Gajin Sunani (P.W.1) that he had expected an untoward incident during harvesting and he had requested Iswar Saltar (P.W.3), Mohan Sunani (P.W.4), Bahadur Sunani (P.W.5), Roopsingh Sunani (P.W.6) and Kunja Sunani (the deceased) to remain present on the land while the harvesting operation was in progress. Likewise, when P.W.1 and his wife Mukhi Sunani (P.W.2) were engaged in the harvesting and in presence of P.Ws.3 to 6, the four Appellants along with one Ichha Bag came to the land armed with deadly weapons like tabli, tangi, tangia, barchi, lathi, bow and arrow and all of a sudden, Akrura Bag-Accused No.1/Appellant No.1 (A1) aimed an arrow shot towards them which was warded off by Mohan Sunani (P.W.4). At this, Bidyadhar Bag (A4) dealt a lathi blow on the head of Mohan Sunani (P.W.4) as a result of which he fell down sustaining bleeding injury. P.W.4 then fled away from the spot. On seeing such assault on P.W.4, the deceased Kunja Sunani protested. Then all the four Appellants indiscriminately attacked him with their respective weapons. As a result, Kunja Sunani sustained multiple injuries. P.W.2- Mukhi Sunani and P.W.5-Bahadur Sunani were also assaulted by the Appellants when they protested. The Appellants then fled away from the spot.

4. Iswar Saltar (P.W.3) reported the matter to Police. An FIR as PS Case No.90 of 1997 was registered in the Patnagarh PS against the Appellants/accused under Sections 147, 148,307,324,323 read with 149 IPC. It was also registered against Ichha Bag, the mother of the Appellants who subsequently was acquitted. After the death of Kunja Sunani, the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC along with other offences. While aiming an arrow towards P.W.4, A1 was supposed to have threatened him asking why he was present at the spot saying 'sale tumar kain jamibadi je tume achicha'.

5. Satyanarayan Panda (P.W.13) was the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) at the Patnagarh PS who reduced the information given to him by P.W.3 into writing and registered the case. He then went to the spot and examined P.W.3, the injured Mohan Sunani (P.W.4) and sent him for medical examination. He then collected the wearing apparels of the injured witnesses. At 11.34 AM on the same day, he received intimation from Dr. R.N. Tripathy (P.W.9) about the death of the deceased. P.W.13 then held an inquest over the dead body of Kunja Sunani in the presence of the witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He collected the incriminating articles and samples from the spot. He conducted a house search of the accused, seized the weapons of offence and arrested all the accused on the same day at 8PM. While in custody, Kalia Bag made a statement leading to the recovery of tabli which was concealed in the paddy field of Roopsingh Sunani (P.W.6). Likewise, pursuant to the statement of Kalia Bag (A3), tabli from the paddy field of P.W.6 was recovered.

6. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the aforementioned offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. Thirteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and two for the defe