The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable despite evidence of homicidal death.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th December, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in C.T. No.04 of 2016 arising out of G.R. Case No.339 of 2015 corresponding to Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.70 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Malkangiri.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of the offence under section 302 of the without any separate sentence for commission of the offence under section 506 (II) of the .

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

On 28.10.2015 around 6.00 p.m, Jagabandhu, who had a quarrel with the accused, Guru had been to his paddy field. The accused assaulted Jagabandhu by means of Ghagada on his neck, forehead and chest. It is also stated that he forcibly assaulted by stone on his hydrocele and thereby intentionally caused his death. Son of Jagabandhu, namely, Laxman (P.W.4) had been to the paddy field in search of Jagabandhu and then the accused threw the dead body of Jagabandhu in front of him. Laxman (P.W.4) was also threatened by the accused to be killed by showing that Ghagada. Being afraid of the same, immediately the report was not lodged at the P.S. but subsequently, with the help of the villagers, the brother of Jagabandhu (deceased), namely, Kamalochan (Informant-P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police of Chitrakonda P.S.

Receiving the said written report from the Informant (P.W.1), the S.I. of Police (P.W.20), in the absence of the Inspector- in-Charge of the P.S., treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.1) and upon registration of the case, took up the investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.20), in course of the investigation, examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. The I.O. (P.W.20), having gone to the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.13) so also held the inquest over the dead body in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report (Ext.2). The sample earth and blood stained earth were seized under seizure list (Ext.4). The I.O. (P.W.20) sent the dead body for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. Thereafter, the I.O. (P.W.20) arrested the accused and it is stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon of offence and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement (Ext.3), the accused is said to have led the I.O. (P.W.20) and other witnesses in giving recovery of Ghagada, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.5). The wearing apparels of the deceased were seized under seizure list (Ext.7). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302/506(ii) of the IPC .

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offences 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 aforesaid offence against the accused.

5. The prosecution, in suppo