Convictions based on inconsistent and inadequately scrutinized witness testimony cannot sustain; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing these Appeals, from inside the jail, have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.143/6 of 2010-2011. The above three Appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and accordingly, each have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 323 read with section 34 of .

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the 22^nd Day of July, 2010 around 5.00 pm, the Informant, namely, Sarthak Naik (P.W.6) was working with his elder father Hadu Naik (the deceased)and his brother-in-law Suresh Dhibar (P.W.7) near the Railway Bridge of Sonaparbat.

It is stated that during then, the Appellants arrived there, abused them in filthy language and assaulted them by means of lathi. The Informant and his brother-in-law sustained bleeding injury on their head on account of said assault by the accused persons. It is further stated that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with boulder causing profuse bleeding from his stomach. They all were then admitted in the Government Hospital at Rourkela for treatment where Hadu Naik in course of treatment succumbed to the injuries.

The First Information Report, being lodged by Sarthak (P.W.6), Tangarpalli P.S. Case No.87 of 2010 was initially registered for commission of offence under section 341/294/323/307/506/34 of IPC , which stood converted to one under section 302 of the in view of the death of Hadu in the hospital.

3. The accused persons faced the trial being charged for commission of offence under section 341/323/294/302/307 read with section 34 of IPC .

4. The plea of the accused persons in defence is that of complete denial.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused person in the trial, has examined in total nine witnesses. It has also proved the FIR admitted in evidence and marked Ext.5, post mortem report (Ext.6), injury reports (Exts.2 & 3), seizure lists etc.

6. The defence, being provided with the opportunity, have neither examined any witness from their side, nor proved any document in support of their defence.

7. The Trial Court, relying upon the evidence of the Doctor, who has conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased examined as P.W.8 and other evidence, has held the death of Hadu to be homicidal.

Then coming to the complicity of the accused persons in the said incident, namely, Hadu Naik and injuries received by Sarthak and Suresh examined as P.Ws.6 and 7 respectively, the Trial Court has held them to have murdered Hadu and caused simple hurt to P.Ws.6 and 7 in furtherance of their common intention. The accused persons thus have been found guilty for commission of offence under section 302/323 with the aid of section 34 of IPC and have been sentenced as aforesaid.

8. We have heard Ms.Tapaswini Singh, Mrs.Prabhasi Nayak and Smt.Sunanda Biswal, learned counsels for the Appellants.

Mr.Samaresh Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel advanced the submission in support of the finding of guilt returned by the Trial Court against the Appellants and so also the sentence so imposed thereunder.

9. Learned counsels for the Appellants submitted that the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the accused pe