Consistent eyewitness testimonies can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite minor discrepancies. The court emphasizes the integrity of the prosecution's case in upholding the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 6th March, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in S.T. No.60 of 2017 arising out of G.R. Case No.102 of 2012 corresponding to Rayagada P.S. Case No.13 of 2017 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Paralakhemundi.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment foe six (6) months for commission of the said offence.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 07.03.2017 around 5.00 p.m., when Padan Sabar, the son of Jay Sabar (Informant-P.W.1) was going to take bath, the accused suddenly assaulted him on his backside of the neck by means of a Dau (concave shaped sharp cutting weapon), which resulted his death instantaneously. Jay Sabar, the father of Padan (deceased) then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in- Charge of Rayagada P.S. The IIC, treating the same as FIR (Ext.1), registered the case and took up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.9) examined the Informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Having visited the spot, the I.O. (P.W.9) prepared the spot map (Ext.10). He (P.W.9) held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.2) and sent the same for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.9) seized the blood stained and sample earth earth under the seizure list (Ext.3). Thereafter, the I.O. (P.W.9) arrested the accused. It is stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon, i.e, Dau and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement (Ext.7), the accused is said to have led the I.O. (P.W.9) and other witnesses in giving recovery of Dau, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.4). The wearing apparels of the accused were seized under seizure list (Ext.5). The post mortem report being received, the I.O. (P.W.9) made query from the Doctor (P.W.5) and received a reply that the injury might have been caused by the seized Dau. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On 22.06.2017, P.W.9 handed over the charge of the investigation to the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.10), who submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offence and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total ten (10) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant, who happens to be the father of the deceased is P.W.1 whereas P.Ws.2 & 3 are the nephews of the Informant (P.W.1). P.Ws.4, 6 & 7 are the independent witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5 is a seizure witness. The Doctor, who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.8. The I.O. of the case, who has done major part of the investigation, has been examined as P.W.9 and the S.I. of Police (P.W.10), who submitted the Final F