Evidence from a sole eyewitness can sustain a conviction if credible; dying declarations are corroborative. Delays in FIR can be justified, and a conviction can be altered based on not meeting the criteria for murder.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant no.1 Lingu @ Lingaraj Karjee @ Bhuya and the appellant no.2 Salli Sabar faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi in Sessions Case No.14 of 1998/Sessions Case No.132 of 1998 (GDC) for commission of offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 506/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter the ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 19^th November, 1997 at about 5.00 p.m. at village Rangada, Purna Sahi Jungle, they committed murder of Dumbai Sabar (hereinafter ‘deceased’) in furtherance of their common intention and for having extended threat to P.W.1 (Somanath Sabar), the son of the deceased, on the very night to cause death thereby caused alarm to him directing to dispose of the dead body of the deceased and not to report the matter before the police station in furtherance of their common intention.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2000 found the appellants guilty under sections 302/506/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) each, in default, to undergo R.I. for two years each under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. However, no separate sentence was awarded for their conviction under section 506 of the I.P.C.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant no.2 Salli Sabar died. As no application was filed to continue the Appeal against him by the near relatives, the Appeal stood abated against him vide order dated 14.08.2025. The Appeal herein is therefore confined to Appellant Lingu @ Lingaraj Karjee @ Bhuya.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter ‘F.I.R.’) (Ext.1) lodged by Somanath Sabar (P.W.1) before P.W.8, Officer in-charge of Rayagada police station on 23.11.1997, in short, is that on 19.11.1997 in the evening hours at about 05.00 p.m., while his father (the deceased) had been to collect date palm sap and he had been to attend call of nature to Puruna Sahi Jungle, he heard screaming sound of his deceased father who was shouting for help. P.W.1 rushed to the place from where the sound was coming and found both the appellants were chasing and assaulting the deceased on his neck by means of Kati (Katari) for which the deceased had sustained injuries and he fell down under a tree. Seeing P.W.1 at the spot, both the appellants fled away. P.W.1 found injuries on the neck of the deceased. He rushed to his uncle Shyam Sabar (P.W.5) and called him to the spot and both of them came to the spot of occurrence and shifted the deceased in an injured condition to the house. After reaching the house, the deceased disclosed before his family members that both the appellants hacked him and caused injuries to him.

It is stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased could not be shifted to the hospital and at about 10.00 p.m. on the occurrence night, he succumbed to the injuries. After some time, both the appellants came to the house of P.W.1 and threatened him not to report the matter before the police and further threatened to dispose of the dead body in the early morning or else he would face dire consequences. Accordingly, P.W.1 assured the appellants to cremate the dead body and with the help of the co-villagers, the dead body was cremated in the morning on the next day of occurrence. The appellants guarded P.W.1