Evidence must be consistent and reliable to uphold a conviction; inherent improbabilities can lead to a verdict of not guilty.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2002/16 of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No.269 of 2001) on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Athamallick. The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.11.2001 around 7.00 p.m., Dhruba Dip had been to the house of Satyabhama Sahu (P.W.1). It is stated that seeing the deceased proceeding towards the house of Satyabhama, the accused persons, namely, Aru and Abhaya followed him. Sometime thereafter, the deceased was found lying with injuries on the way. He then told before then that while coming on the way, he had been assaulted by the accused persons by means of lathi on account of previous enmity. The deceased was taken to the Athamallick Hospital where in course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

3. The information in writing, being given by one Mithila Dip, who happens to be the wife of the deceased (P.W.3), the Officer-in-Charge of Athamallick Police Station registered P.S. Case No.75 of 2001 for the offence under section 302/34 IPC .

In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.10)examined the Informant and other witnesses, seized the incriminating articles, got the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased conducted on police requisition after holding inquest over the dead body. The incriminating articles, being sent for chemical examination through the Court, the report has been obtained. Finally, on completion of investigation of the case, the accused persons were placed to face the trial for commission of offence under section 302/34 IPC .

4. The charge sheet having been received, learned S.D.J.M., Athamallick, after observing the legal formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and that is how the Trial against the accused persons commenced by framing the charge for the above offences. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the accused persons, has in total examined 11 witnesses, which include the Informant (wife of the deceased-P.W.3), two other relations of the deceased, i.e., P.Ws.2 & 3 and three other independent witnesses. The Police Officer, investigating the case, has been examined as P.Ws.10 and 11. Besides the above, from the side of the prosecution, the FIR (Ext.2), inquest report (Ext.1), post mortem report (Ext.12), chemical examiner’s report (Ext.10) and other documents such as seizure list, spot map etc. have been proved.

The defence has not examined any of the witness nor proved any document in support of the defence of denial and false implication.

5. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence and their analysis, at its level, first of all has found the death of the deceased Dhruba Dip to be homicidal in nature. This has been amply proved by the prosecution through the witnesses as well as the report of the doctor which has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.12 that the deceased met his death on account of the injuries sustained by him. The defence has also not challenged this aspect.

The Trial Court has accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that those witnesses having asked the deceased, he had disclosed the names of these accused persons as his assailants