The conviction under Section 302 was overturned due to reliance on insufficient and unreliable witness testimony, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.08/38 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.921 of 2010 corresponding to Turumunga P.S/. Case No.70 of 2010 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar.

By the same, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with the default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 30.09.2010 around 11 pm to 12 mid night, the occurrence took place in the house of the accused at village Murusuan. The Deceased Manjulata had married the accused about three (3) months before the said incident. She was residing in the house of accused. On that day, both husband and wife(accused and the deceased) were in their bed room, when the attention of the father of the accused namely, Dusasan (Informant- P.W.1) was drawn to the screaming of the deceased. He then tried to open the door to rescue her, but the door was found to have been bolted from inside. He thus was prevented from saving the situation. It is stated that shortly after that, the accused fled away from the place and then P.W.1 found the dead body of the deceased lying with multiple wounds, more particularly on her neck. One Farsa was also seen to be lying there. On 14.09.2010, around 8 am, the father of the accused namely, Dusasan (P.W.2) having lodged a written report before the Inspector-in-Charge, Turumunga P.S., the investigation commenced.

3. During investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and the statements of the witnesses including that of the Informant (P.W.1) present were recorded. Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on police requisition, incriminating articles including that Farsa was seized under seizure lists. The Doctor (P.W.3) conducting postmortem examination opined the injuries to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death and that those injuries can be caused by the weapon(Farsa) that he examined. Being received finally, the charge-sheet was submitted placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC .

4. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar having taken cognizance of the offence, after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the trial commenced by framing charge against the accused for offence under section-302 of the IPC .

Accused took the plea of complete denial and false implication.

5. From the side of the prosecution in total six (6) witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 is the father of the accused and P.W.4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased (parent-in-laws of the accused), P.W. 3 and 6 are the Medical officer and Investigating Officer respectively. One Madhu Sudan Naik, who happens to be a co-villager of the accused has been examined as P.W.2. Besides the above, the prosecution has proved several documents such as Exts.1 to 13. The F.I.R. in the case has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.5. The inquest report and postmortem report have been proved as Exts.2 and 1 respectively. Various seizure lists showing seizure of incriminating articles have also been proved. The answer of the Doctor to the query made by the Investigating Officer as to user of that Farsa in causing the injuries noticed by him is Ext.2.

6. The Trial C