Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22^nd February, 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No.231 of 2002 arising out of Hemgir P.S. Case No.117 of 2001 thereby adjudging them guilty under Section 302 /34 of IPC and directing them to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) and to undergo further period of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months in default of payment thereof.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.11.2001 after returning from his work one Basudev Rohidas (deceased) of village Jambahal along with another person Kandarap Rohidas (P.W.10) went to a Tea-tiffin hotel of the Appellant No.1, Subart Dey @ Rajesh. Both Basudev Rohidas and Kandarapa Rohidas took tiffin in the hotel and got bill of Rs.14/-. But they paid Rs.10/- and requested the Appellant No.1- Subart Dey to clear balance. As appellant No.1-Subrat Dey did not accede to their request and quarrel ensued. And, suddenly, Appellant No.1- Subarat Dey @ Rajesh assaulted Basudev Rohidas (deceased) by means of iron rod and a Bahungi.

3A. Appellant No.2- Jayadev Sunani @ Kunda, who was serving as an employee in the said hotel also assaulted Kandarpa Rohidas causing injuries. Out of fear Kandarpa Rohidas (P.W.10) ran away from the hotel and informed the incident to the villagers so also the relations of Basudev Rohidas (deceased). Basudev did not return to his house on the said date.

4. On the following day (09.11.2001) he was found lying by the side of Railway track in an unconscious state about one k.m. away from the Hemgir Railway Station. On getting information, the then Station Master of Hemgir Railway Station reached the spot where the deceased- Basudev Rohidas was lying. He sent the injured-Basudev Rohidas to Railway Hospital, Raigarh for treatment. But during treatment, the injured-Basudev Rohidas succumbed to his injures.

5. After his death and on information by the Medical Officer of Raigarh Hospital, the A.S.I. of Police, Kutwali P.S. proceeded to the hospital, inquest was conducted and sent the dead-body for post mortem examination to K.G. Hospital.

6. Thereafter, on the written report submitted by the wife of the deceased, Bilashini Rohidas-P.W.15, at Hemgir Police Station, the F.I.R (Ext.4) was registered by the O.I.C. as Hemgir P.S. Case No.117 of 2001 (G.R. Case No.639 of 2001) under Section 341 /323/302/34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA)Act.

6A. During the course of investigation, the I.O.-P.W.21 visited the spot and examined the informant-P.W.15 and witness Kandarap Rohidas and prepared the spot marked as Ext.11 and Ext.11/1 is his signature. On 24.11.2001, he handed over the charge of investigation to inspector S.K. Mishra, the then C.I., Sadar, Sundargarh. He examined Biranchi Naik-P.W.3, Paradeshi Rohidas-P.W.4, Hema Rout-P.W.5 and Panchuli Pradhan-P.W.6 and on 22.11.2001 he recorded the statement of Kandarp Rohidas-P.W.10.

7. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the accused persons U/s-302/34 IPC .

8. To drive home such charge, the prosecution examined

24 witnesses. Their description runs thus:

9. Several exhibits and material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution out of which Ext.5 is the post mortem report, Ext.4 is the F.I.R., Ext.1,6,12 & Ext.3/1,Ext.13 are the seizure list are of significance. And, the material object M.O.1 was also admitted into evidence.

No evidence was let in by the defence and defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication, which is also borne out from the statement of the accused(Appellant) under Section-313 of Cr.P.C.

10. Admittedly, the case at hand is based on circumstantial evide