The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting issues with the validity of witness testimonies and the admissibility of confession evidence.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th June, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.103 of 2011 arising out of C.T. Case No.531 of 2011 corresponding to Bonth P.S. Case No.34 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bhadrak.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for commission of the said offence.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

Sometime in the mid of March, 2011, the accused was staying in the house of Kasinath Nayak of Village-Gavigadia. On 06.04.2011 around 8.30 p.m., the accused call his wife-Suma Behera to go to the field to attend the called of nature. After some time, cry being heard; some villagers went towards the field. The accused then was found by those villagers to be returning from the nearby field. The villagers saw the wife of the accused lying in a bleeding condition in the filed and she was by then dead. The villagers when asked the accused about the death of his wife, he confessed to have done her to death by suspecting her character.

The Grama Rakhi of the village, namely, Ramakanta Jena (P.W.1) then lodged the written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC-P.W.16) of Bonth Police Station (P.S.).

The IIC (P.W.16), receiving the written report from P.W.1, treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and on registering the case, took up the investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.16), in course of the investigation, examined the informant (P.W.1). The I.O. (P.W.16), having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.13). He too held inquest over the dead body in presence of the witness and prepared the report (Ext.2). She collected the blood stained earth and sample earth and seized the same under seizure list (Ext.3). The I.O. (P.W.16) sent the dead body of Suma for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. There she (P.W.16) apprehended the accused and it is stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement, the accused is said to have led the police and other witnesses in giving recovery of the weapon, i.e. the crow bar (M.O.II). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.16) submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC .

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, 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 aforesaid offences against the accused.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total sixteen (16) witnesses during Trial. Out of them, P.W.1 is the informant. P.Ws.2, 3, 4 & 6 are the villagers before whom the accused is said to have confessed his guilt. P.W.7 is the daughter of the informant. P.Ws.5, 9, 10, 13, 14 & 15 are the witnesses to the seizure. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased whereas, the I.O. at the end, has com