The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and inadmissibility of confessions made in police custody, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have impeached the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.T. No.21 of 2016 arising out of G.R. Case No.170 of 2014 corresponding to Badagada P.S. Case No.77 of 2014 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Sorada.

The Appellants (accused persons) with seven others having been charged for commission of offence under sections 302/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’) faced the trial and it is only these two Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for committing the offence under sections 302/34, I.P.C. whereas the other seven accused persons who had been arraigned as accused have been acquitted of all the charges. These Appellants (accused persons) have accordingly been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under section 302, I.P.C. with the stipulation that the realized fine be paid to the wife of the deceased (P.W.12).

2. Prosecution case is that on 03.06.2014 around 7 a.m. Chandra Nayak (deceased) who happens to be the brother of Bhaba Charan Nayak (P.W.14) had gone to village Gangapur on his Motor Cycle after having sent his Tractor to get a load of sand from Sorada. While returning to his village from Gangapur through Badagada, it is said that persons, namely, Tuna Swain, Kishore Panda and Raju Sethi (arraigned as accused and have been acquitted) who were having enmity with the deceased followed him. So, it is said that they had hatched a criminal conspiracy at Badagada Chhak with two others, namely, Sima Behera and Panchu Behera (arraigned as accused and since acquitted). It was around 8.30 a.m. on the way near the house of one Mahadev Gouda, these accused persons, namely, Pramod Behera, and Baya Behera with three others, namely, Basanta Behera, Susanta Behra and Sarata Behera (arraigned as accused and since acquitted) restrained the deceased with the help of a rope. It is stated that Basanta, Susanta and Sarata (since acquitted) caught hold of the deceased and these two accused persons then assaulted him by means of Kati and Katua causing bleeding injuries on his head and neck leading to his death.

Receiving the information, as to the said incident, the brother of the deceased (Informant-P.W.14) rushed to the spot and found his brother lying dead. He then reported the matter in writing to the Sub- Inspector of Police (S.I. of Police-P.W.26) present at Badagada Police Station. The S.I.(P.W.26) in the absence of Inspector-In- Charge (I.I.C.) of the Police Station immediately registered the case by treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.6) and took up investigation. The S.I. of Police (I.O.-P.W.26 ) examined the Informant (P.W.14) and deputed the Constable to guard the dead body at the spot. He then went to the spot and prepared the spot map in presence of witnesses. He also held inquest over the dead body of Chandra Nayak (deceased) and prepared the inquest report (Ext.1). The dead body of Chandra Nayak (deceased) was then sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He also seized blood stained and sample earth with the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration no.OD-07A 3119, one plastic rope, one colour Yxtel mobile phone and one black colour Nokia mobile phone from the spot and prepared the seizure list. He also seized one blood stained Katua from the spot and prepared the seizure list to that effect in presence of witnesses. He, however, having searched for the accused persons in their respective houses could not traced th