The prosecution must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of reliable witness testimony can lead to reversal of a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 10th December, 2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.152 of 1997 arising out of G.R. Case No.923 of 1996 corresponding to Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.195 of 1996 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (R), (J.M.F.C.), Cuttack.The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of the said offence.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

On 24.07.1996 around 9.00 p.m, the Informant (P.W.3), being told by one Kalandi Behera, when went to the spot near a tubewell, he found his brother Siba Naik lying in a serious condition with bleeding injury on his neck, hands and other parts of the body. Siba was then shifted to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack where he succumbed to those injuries on the next day.

A report to the above effect being lodged on 24.07.1996 by P.W.3 with the Officer-in-Charge (O.I.C.), Cuttack Sadar Police Station at his camp at Telengapitha, the O.I.C. (P.W.11) send the same to the P.S. for registration of the case. Accordingly, upon registration of the case at the P.S., he (P.W.11) took up the investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.11), in course of the investigation, shifted the injured Siba to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment, visited the spot and deputed a police constable to guard the spot. He (P.W.11) made a requisition to the scientific team for collection of the clues. On receipt of the information that Siba succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment, he (P.W.11) proceeded to the Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of Siba and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.8). He (P.W.11) sent the dead body of Siba for post mortem examination. He (P.W.11) arrested this accused and one Bidyadhar Mohapatra on 03.08.1996 and sent them to Court in custody. Since he (P.W.11) was under the order of transfer, the investigation of the case was handed over to his successor (P.W.10).

The second I.O. (P.W.10), in course of his investigation, examined some of the witnesses and submitted the Final Form placing this accused along with four others to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC.

4. Learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against this accused and four others.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total eleven (11) witnesses during trial. Out of them, as already stated, the informant, who is the brother of Siba (deceased) is P.W.3. P.Ws.1 & 2 are the eye witnesses as projected by the prosecution. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Padmini has been examined as P.W.4. P.W.9 is the Scientific Officer. P.Ws.5, 7 & 8 are the witnesses who have turned hostile. The first I.O. of the case has been examined as P.W.11 whereas the I.O., who submitted the Final Form is P.W.10.

6. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 8. Out of those, the important are, the FIR (Ext.1), the spot visit report (Ext.5), inques