The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where mental health concerns can significantly impact culpability.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This is a case of patricide.

2. In this CRLA, the convict/ Appellant (Tapomaya Panda) assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.T. No.79 of 2012, whereby the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months for commission of offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code/ 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.” for brevity).

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Sasmita Kumari Panda wife of Sridhartha Sankar Dash of Simanchal Marg, Buguda reported in writing to the I.I.C., Buguda Police Station on 11.09.2012 at 8.00 A.M. to the effect that on the same day i.e. on 11.09.2012 at 4.30 A.M., she received a phone call from her mother who informed her that someone had assaulted her father and thrown his body in a bleeding condition. Hearing this news, the informant came to the house of her mother and found the dead body of her father namely Trilochan Panda, who was aged about 63 years lying in the first floor of their house. She further claimed that her brother Tapomaya Panda @ Badal who is the accused of this case was quarrelling with her father regularly. She had also received information from her mother that on the previous night, her brother i.e. the accused had also quarreled with her father and had given threatening to her father to kill him. In the early morning, there was a quarrel between the accused and her father. She further stated that the present accused after strangulating her father by a rope had assaulted him with a deadly weapon on his head causing death of her father. Thereafter, the accused fled from their house. Therefore, she requested the police to give suitable punishment to her brother i.e. to the accused, for causing death of her father. Based on her F.I.R., Buguda Police Station Case No.121 of 2012 was registered and investigation was taken up. During course of investigation, sample earth, blood stained earth, one iron article like ring, one bloodstained bicycle pump, one jean pant, one half shirt, one white banian, one bloodstained white dhoti and one bloodstained sacred thread were seized. The same were sent to R.F.S.L. Berhampur for chemical analysis. Subsequently, one command certificate was also seized. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in this case against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

II. TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT:

4. The plea of the defence is one of complete admission of the alleged occurrence and the accused admitted that he had killed his father by means of a cycle pump. But, he had not strangulated his father by means of any sacred thread. He also admitted about his signature on the seizure list. However, he denied to have confessed anything before the police and refused to give any evidence in support of his defence.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Out of whom P.W.1 (Dr. Prafulla Chandra Gouda) is the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Trilochan Panda. P.W.2 (Laxmi Nrusingha Panda) was turned hostile, P.W.3 (Jyotshna Mayee Panda) is the wife of the deceased as well as the mother of the accused, who proved the inquest report as Ext.3, P.W.4 (Sasmita Kumari Panda) is sister of the accused as well as daughter o