The legal principle established is that the entire deposition of an eyewitness should not be discarded if some portion is found to be false, and the legal requirements for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th August, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case No.118-A/25 of 1998/2000 convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. By an order dated 3rd April 2004, the Appellants were directed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 20th/21st April 1998, Goberdhan Behera (since deceased), who was the informant in the case, and his daughter-Pravati Behera (P.W. 2) woke up from their sleep hearing a sound from the courtyard in front of their house. When they came to the courtyard, they noticed deceased-Bimbadhar, son of the informant and brother of P.W.2, groaning in his sleeping place (khata). When they neared the deceased, they could notice the three accused - Harsha Behera, Accused No.1 (A1), his brother Sarata Behera (A2) and Prakash Sahu (A3) holding burchha in their hands were going away towards their village. The informant and P.W.2 found Bimbadhar lying dead in the pool of blood. They immediately called the neighbours and others, who came to the spot. The informant disclosed to them that the accused had killed his son and that A1 had threatened his son that he would kill him in case his son is appointed as a control dealer. The case of the prosecution, as spoken by the informant, was that since the deceased had been appointed as a control dealer and received the official order to lift the rations on 22nd April 1998, the accused persons murdered him in the intervening night of 20th/21st April, 1998, a day prior to the lifting of the ration.

4. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC) at the Kaniha Police Station (PS) on 21st April, 1998 was Nityananda Jena (P.W.10). He received the information from G.R. Bira Naik of village Durgapur regarding the murder. He then proceeded to the village and received a written complaint from the informant. Thereafter FIR PS Case No.16 of 1998 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered and the investigation commenced. P.W.10 conducted an inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and prepared an inquest report. On the same date at 12 noon, he seized the blood stained pillow, some blood stained earth, and sample earth from the spot and prepared a seizure list. He arrested the accused persons at 9 pm on 21st April, 1998. On 22nd April 1998, PW 10 obtained the post-mortem (PM) report of Dr. Mahesh Prasad Rout (P.W.11) from the S.D. Hospital, Talcher. On 18th June 1998, P.W. 10 handed over the investigation to M.D. Sahu, the Circle Inspector (CI), Talcher (P.W.8). A charge-sheet was laid against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined. One Golekha Sahu (D.W.1) was examined by the defence. He deposed that A1 was the control dealer and did not cause trouble to anyone. According to him, the deceased was never appointed as a dealer in place of A1. A suggestion was given to this witness about A3 misbehaving with P.W.2. However, nothing much came out from the deposition of D.W.1, which could help the defence.

6. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had been able to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict and sentence them in the manner indicated above.

7. The trial Court noticed that P.Ws.3 and 6 had turned hostile and that the prosecution had also failed to examine Bipin and Achuta, whose names found place in the FIR. Further, the I.O had not collected any evidence regarding the motive for the crime. However, for this reason alone, the entire case of the prosecution could not be rejected.

8. This was a case based on circumstantial evidence with no person having actually seen the assault on the deceased. A fact to be noted