The standard of proof in a criminal case demands evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in Sessions Case No.37 of 2007 arising out of Serango P.S. Case No.02 of 2007 thereby adjudging him guilty under Section 302 of IPC and directing him to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and to undergo further period of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months in default, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant from inside the jail.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.02.2007 at about 4 P.M. when the deceased a resident of village Abasing Sahi(Surangi) within the jurisdiction of Serango P.S. was asleep on the verandah of his house, the appellant came there being armed with Kati(sickle) and assaulted the deceased (Gajaru Bhuyan) by the blunt side of the same and thereafter tying the said Gajaru Bhuyan in a rope and dragged him up to his house. And, he did not relent even when the wife of the deceased tried to intervene and infact threatened her.

4. It is stated that because of such assault the deceased died instantaneously.

5. It is on record through the evidence of I.O., P.W.9 that on receipt of intimation regarding the occurrence on 13.02.2007, on 14.02.2007, he initially made a station diary entry No.240 at 5.30 P.M. at P.S. Thereafter he visited the spot, and received plain paper intimation of P.W.6, who fixed his L.T.I. The content of the same was read over and explained to him and he found to the same to be correct as per his version and treating the same as F.I.R., Serango P.S. Case No.02 of 2007 was instituted.

6. Investigation got underway. The inquest of the dead body was held and the same was sent for post mortem to D.H.H, Parlakhemundi and the accused was taken into custody on the same day i.e. on 14.02.2007.

7. After examining the material witnesses , the P.M. report and discovery of the alleged weapon of offence vide M.O.I, final form was submitted by the I.O., under Section-302 of IPC against the Appellant-accused and on the basis of the same Learned SDJM, Parlakhemundi in G.R. No.30 of 2007 committed the matter to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi for the Appellant to face charge under Section-448/302 of Indian Penal Code,1860 hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.

8. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 9(Nine) witnesses. Their description runs thus:

9. Several exhibits and material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution of which Exhibit-1 is the post mortem report, exhibit-4/1 the F.I.R. are of significance.

No evidence was let in by the defence and defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication, which is also borne out from the statement of the accused(Appellant) under Section-313 of Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Mohanty submitted with vehemence that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that P.W.1 and 4, who have been cited as an occurrence witnesses are the most interested ones. In as much as deceased was the nephew of P.