Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient witness testimony led to wrongful conviction in murder case.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the Jail, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No.163 of 2013, arising out of G.R Case No.1102 of 2012, corresponding to Dharmasala P.S. Case No.343 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Chandikhol.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC ’) and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years.

Prosecution case:-

2. On 20.11.2012, around 6 p.m., one Sanatana Mallik (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ext.) with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Dharamsala Police Station (P.W.) stating therein that on that day, around 4.30 p.m. when having heard terrible sounds, he had been to the house of the accused, he saw several people of the locality to have gathered thereon. On enquiry, it was ascertained that the accused had killed his wife namely Minati Mallik. It was also stated in the FIR (Ext.1) that the accused then was standing there holding a blood stained axe and Katuri and Minati, the wife of the accused was lying dead near the door of the house.

The IIC (P.W.18), receiving the above written report, treated the same as FIR and registering the case, took up the investigation.

In course of investigation, he examined the Informant (P.W.1) and then went to the spot and examined other witnesses there. On the next morning, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.4) to that effect in presence of the witnesses. He also prepared the spot map (Ext.9). The dead body was then sent for post mortem examination and prior to that the I.O (P.W.18) seized incriminating articles such as the blood stained earth and sample earth etc. vide seizure list (Ext.5/2). He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on production by the police constable, who had been deputed to accompany the dead body for post mortem examination. On 26.11.2012, P.W.18, having received the post mortem examination report, handed over the charge of investigation to his successor in office (P.W.19). The subsequent I.O (P.W.19) then reexamined the witnesses and on his prayer, the seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court.

On completion of investigation, the I.O (P.W.18) submitted the Final Form, placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC .

3. Learned JMFC, Chandikhol, having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the offence under section 302 of the IPC and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced against the accused by framing the charge for the said offence.

4. In the Trial, prosecution in total has examined nineteen (19) witnesses. As already stated, the informant who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1), scribed by P.W.16, is P.W.1. P.W.12 and P.W.17 are the son and brother of the deceased. The independent witnesses are P.W.2 to P.W.11. P.W.13 and P.W.14 are the witnesses to the seizure. The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, is P.W.15 where as P.W.18 and P.W.19 are the two Investigating Officers.

5. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to Ext.12. Out of those, the important are the FIR (Ext.1),