Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; reliance on contradictory evidence is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19.07.2012, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Keonjhar, in S. T Case No.29/50 of 2012, arising out of G.R. Case No.1083 of 2011, corresponding to Nayakote P.S. Case No.43 of 2011 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Keonjhar.

The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo R.I for six (6) months for the offence under section 302 of the .

2. Prosecution case:-

On 21.11.2011 around 11.30 a.m., one Birakishore Naik (Informant-P.W.1), the then ward member of the village Baragoda lodged a written report with the Sub-Inspector (S.I) of Police attached to Nayakote Police Station, who then in the absence of the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of the P.S. was discharging the duties as such.

In the report, it was stated that on 21.11.2011, during the morning hours, he learnt from co-villager Badrinarayan Pradhan that on the previous night, his father hurled obscene words aimed at his elder brother Sagar followed by repeated curses also coming from the side of his father Lalmohan. When the tolerance level crossed, Sagar Pradhan (accused) gave lathi blows upon his father Lalmohan which resulted his fall and led to his death. The Informant-P.W.1 having received such news, had been to the house of Lalmohan and saw him lying dead. Receiving such written report, the S.I of Police (P.W.16) treated the same as FIR (Ext.1), and the case being registered, investigation was taken up.

3. In course of investigation, the I.O (P.W.15) examined the informant (P.W.1), visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.10). He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report to that effect vide Ext.2. He then examined other witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He seized blood stained and sample earth from the spot under seizure list Ext.5. On 21.11.2011, he arrested the accused. The I.O (P.W.16) seized the weapon i.e. lathi on production of the accused Sagar and prepared the seizure list (Ext.4/2). He then seized the wearing apparels of the accused and prepared the report to that effect vide Ext.6. Accused was sent to District Headquarter Hospital for collection of nail clippings and blood sample and was forwarded in custody to Court. The incriminating articles were sent to SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through Court.

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

5. Learned SDJM, Keonjhar, 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 accused for the said offence.

6. In the Trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused has in total examined 16 (sixteen) witnesses. The informant, who had lodged the written report which was treated as FIR vide Ext.1, is the ward Member of village Baraguda has been examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the nephew of the deceased and cousin brother of the accused. P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.12 are the post occurrence witnesses. P.W.13 is the wife of the deceased and mother of the accused. P.W.8 is the witness to the seizure. T