A conviction based on a solitary eyewitness requires corroboration; if contradictions and doubts exist, the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Appellants question correctness of the judgment dated 23.06.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 153 of 1997, whereby they were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 & 120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Eight persons, namely, Jandu @ Janda Munda, Jamadar Munda, Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri, Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri, Kanda Laguri @ Turi, Harish Laguri, Naran Munda and Arjun @ Ananda Laguri faced trial. Six out of eight accused were convicted by the trial Court. Out of them, appellant No.1 (Jandu @ Janda Munda), appellant No.3 (Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri) and appellant No.6 (Arjun @ Ananda Laguri) having expired, the appeal has abated against them. Appellant No. 4 (Kanda Laguri) was released prematurely in 2017. Thus, the present appeal is confined only to appellant No.2 (Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri) and appellant No.5 (Harish Laguri).

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the deceased Asadu Munda and his wife Budhini Munda (also deceased) along with their child Guruba were residing in his father-in-law’s (Laxmidhar Munda) house. Raja Munda, the younger brother of the deceased Asadu Munda was also residing with them. On 11.02.1997 midnight, the accused persons went to the house of Asadu and asked for ‘handia’. When Asadu opened the door holding a ‘dibiri’ in his hand, the appellants assaulted him, his wife and their child Guruba inflicting severe injuries on them, as a result of which Asadu and his wife Budhini succumbed to the injuries, but their child survived with cut injuries on his belly after prolonged treatment in the hospital. Raja Munda somehow escaped and hid in the nearby jungle. He came out in the early morning from the jungle and informed other villagers including the Grama Rakhi. The Chowkidar came to their house and finding the same locked, he went up to the roof and after removing the tiles, saw the dead body of Asadu lying inside. Then, he and Raja Munda went to Jhumpura Out-post and lodged the F.I.R. It is the further case of the prosecution that appellant no.1 (Jandu @ Janda Munda) suspected Asadu and his wife Budhini of practising witchcraft and had declared that he would finish them off. He, therefore, contacted some Adivasi youths of Bihar and gave effect to his plan.

On the complaint of Raja Munda, which was reduced into writing, investigation commenced, in course of which complicity of the accused persons having come to light, they were arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against them.

4. The defence plea was of denial.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited thirty eight documents besides proving five material objects. The defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

6. After analyzing the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charges against Jamadar Munda and Naran Munda beyond all reasonable doubt for which they were acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the charges proved against the other accused persons, and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

7. Heard Sri A.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Debaraj Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

8. Sri Acharya would argue that the trial Court committed manifest error in recording the order of conviction basing entirely on the evidence of the informant (P.W.1) even though his version is not at a