The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the reliability of evidence, leading to acquittal.

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 13th July, 2012 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Baripada in S.T. case No.24/181 of 2010-2009, arising out of G.R Case No.100 of 2009, corresponding to Kaptipada P.S. Case No.26 of 2009 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Udala.

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.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

Prosecution case:-

2. On 21.04.2009, around 6 pm, Bhagaban Sethi (deceased) was sitting on a charpoy in front of his house. The accused came there carrying a kitchen knife (Paniki) and all of a sudden, gave cut blows on his neck from the back and front. The son of Bhagaban namely Sarata (Informant-P.W.1), the wife of the deceased namely, Kokilamani (P.W.2) and the grandson (daughter’s son) of the deceased (P.W.3) having seen the incident, started shouting. On this, the accused ran away throwing the knife at the spot. Seeing this, when the villagers rushed to the spot, they found Bhagaban lying dead.

On that day, around 7 p.m., the son of the deceased namely Sarata (Informant- P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ext.1) with the Officer-in- Charge (OIC) of Kaptipada Police Station (P.W.9). The OIC (P.W.9), having received the said written report (Ext.1), treated the same as FIR and upon registration of the case, took up the investigation.

In course of investigation, the I.O (P.W.9) examined the Informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. He then visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.7). He also examined other witnesses at the spot. The accused thereafter was arrested and his wearing apparels were seized under seizure list (Ext.3/1). The I.O (P.W.9) then held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.2) to that effect. He also seized some incriminating articles such as blood stained earth and sample earth, a pair of chappal and a kitchen knife lying there at the spot in presence of the witnesses under seizure list (Ext.4). The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination and the accused was forwarded in custody to the Court. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On 04.07.2009, the I.O (P.W.9) being under the order of transfer made over the charge of investigation to the Sub-Inspector (SI) of Police namely A.C. Patra, who on completion of investigation, submitted the Final Form, placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC .

3. Learned SDJM, Udala, 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 nine (9) witnesses. As already stated, P.W.1, who happens to be the son of the deceased is the Informant and had lodged the FIR (Ext.1). The mother of P.W.1 and who is the wife of the deceased has come to the witness box as P.W.2 and the daughter’s son of the deceased has appeared as P.W.3. P.W.6 and P.W.7 the two post occurrence witnesses. The Doctor, who had held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, is P.W.8 and the Inve