Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on the sole testimony of one witness without corroboration is inadequate for sustaining a murder conviction.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in S.T. No.59 of 2017, arising out of G.R. Case No.141 of 2017, corresponding to Gurandi P.S. Case No.24 of 2017, of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Paralakhemundi.

The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘ IPC ’) and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year for the offence under section 302 of the .

2. Prosecution case is that on 04.04.2017, around 11 p.m., accused assaulted his mother, namely, Rohini Mallick by means of a wooden plank and a kati in causing her death. The brother of the accused, namely, Kirti Mallick being informed about the incident by one Surendra Patra (P.W.8), a co-villager rushed to the spot and saw his mother lying dead with serious bleeding injuries. He (P.W.12) then lodged a written report in the morning of 05.04.2017 with the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Gurandi Police Station who having received such written report, treated the same as FIR and upon registration of the case, took up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O- P.W.16) examined the informant and other material witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the spot map vide Ext.11. The I.O (P.W.16) held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report vide Ext.1. He examined some inquest witnesses and collected sample earth as well as blood stain earth from the spot under seizure list vide Ext.6. He then sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He apprehended the accused and arrested him. Upon examination, in presence of the independent witnesses namely, Surendra Patra and Kartika Mallick, the accused confessed to have committed the offence and concealed the weapon of offence in the heap of a straw. The accused is said to have led the I.O. to the spot in giving recovery of one blood stain wooden bar attached with rope, one blood stain iron kati and one torch light. The I.O. (P.W.16) seized those articles in presence of witnesses and prepared the report to that effect under seizure list vide Ext.5/1. On 06.04.2017, the accused was forwarded in custody to Court. The wearing apparels of the deceased were seized vide Ext.2. On 05.06.2017, the seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination to RFSL, Berhampur through Court.

Finally, on completion of the investigation, on 30.06.2017, the I.O (P.W.16) submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC .

4. Learned SDJM, Paralakhemundi receiving the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the offence and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing charge against the said offence against the accused.

5. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined sixteen (16) witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.5 is the informant, who had lodged the written report (Ext.3) whereas P.W.7 is the scribe of the same. P.W.6, P.W.9 and P.W.15 are the witnesses to the seizure. P.W.12 is the brother of the Informant and accused. P.W.13 is the Gram Rakhi. The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.14 and the I.O is P.W.16.

6. The prosecution besides leading the evidence by examining above the witnesses has also proved sever