The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Judgment :

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th March, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial Case No.71 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.198 of 1999 corresponding to Kaptipada P.S. Case No.58 of 1999 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Udala.

These Appellants (accused persons) including one Bada Chamuru Naik have been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, these accused persons have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

On 01.08.1999 around 2.30 p.m. one Sami Bhakta (Informant-P.W.1) lodged a written report with Officer-in- Charge (O.I.C.) of Kaptipada Police Station (P.S.) stating therein that on the previous day, when she was returning with her husband, namely, Bhamara Bhakta from Padmapokhari Market, two persons came running to them and out of them, one, namely, Bada Chamaru Naik, dealt a blow with the blunt side of the axe on the head of Bhamara. Receiving the said blow, Bhamara fell on the ground and then he was further assaulted. The Informant (P.W.1) ran away from the spot to the house of her friend and staying there for some time, informed her father-in-law and other villagers.

On receipt of the above report, the O.I.C (P.W.6) treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and upon registration of the case, took up the investigation.

3. The Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police, namely, Angada Pradhan, (dead by the time of trial), investigated the case and in course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of the Informant (P.W.1) under section 161 Cr.P.C. He, having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.6) and held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.2). He sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. On 10.10.1999, the second I.O. (P.W.6) took charge of the investigation from S.I.-Angada Pradhan. He (P.W.6) on completion of the investigation, submitted the Final Form placing the accused persons, namely, Lal Mohan @ Sai, Mangal Singh and Bara Singh to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC .

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Udala, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the offence under section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons, namely, Lal Mohan @ Sai, Mangal Singh and Bara Singh to face the Trial.

It be stated at this stage that in the midst of the trial, after examination of seven prosecution witnesses, an application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution and move thereby was to arraign Bada Chamuru Naik as an accused. The order to that effect, being passed on 18.04.2001, the Trial commenced and all the witnesses were examined afresh against all including that accused, namely, Bada Chamuru Naik.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total six (6) witnesses during Trial. Out of them, the informant, who is the wife of the deceased, is P.W.1 whereas the P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. P.W.3 is a friend of the Informant (P.W.1) to whom the Informant (P.W.1) had told that the accused persons had killed her husband. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.5. The I.O, at the end, has come