The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the prosecution failed to meet this standard, resulting in reversal of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th October, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T. Case No.271 of 2009 arising out of G.R. Case No.74 of 2009 corresponding to Banki P.S. Case No.63 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Banki.

The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, each of them 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 one (1) year each.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

Accused Ratikanta Mohapatra and Bibhuti Mohapatra are the two sons of Ajati @ Ajaya Mohapatra and accused Anusaya Mohapatra is the wife of said Ajati @ Ajaya. It was stated that Ajay had been to the market to purchase tea and sugar. Ajay, having left the house in the evening, did not return. So, accused Ratikanta and others searched for him till 9.00 p.m. Having failed in their mission, they returned home in the night. Thereafter, thinking that Ajay might have gone somewhere-else, they went for sleep. In the next morning, Ajay had not returned home. It was around 7.00 a.m, some girls of Tira Sahi came and told accused Ratikanta that Ajay was lying dead in a pool of blood at Mandakula.

Receiving the said information, accused Ratikanta and Anusaya went to the place and found Ajay lying dead with cut injuries on his neck and nose. The villagers by then had arrived at the spot. A knife was found lying near the dead body of Ajay. The IIC (P.W.13), receiving telephonic information from the Sarpanch, namely, Bhagirathi Pani (P.W.1) about the dead body lying near the Mandakula and having entered the said fact in the Station Diary Book maintained at the P.S., had left for the spot with other police personnels to verify the correctness of said information. There around 9.00 a.m., accused Ratikanta lodged the written report. That report being received by the IIC (P.W.13), the same was treated as FIR (Ext.13) and upon registration of a case, investigation was taken up.

The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.13), in course of the investigation, examined the accused Ratikanta and other two accused persons. He also requisitioned the service of tracker dog. The I.O. (P.W.13), having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.14). He too held inquest over the dead body in presence of the witness and prepared the report (Ext.1). He sent the dead body of Ajay for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. Few more witnesses were examined and incriminating articles were also seized. In course of investigation, materials were collected by the I.O. (P.W.13) that the informant Ratikanta and his brother as well as his mother are the culprits, accused Ratikanta was arrested. It was stated that, he, being in police custody, giving the statement and gave the recovery of a knife at Mandakula and also his wearing apparels. The statement of Ratikanta that he had kept the knife and wearing apparels in a place near Mandakula and if he would be led to the place, he would give recovery of the same, had been recorded by the I.O. (P.W.13) under Ext.5. Pursuant to the statement, accused Ratikanta is said to have led the police and other witnesses in giving recovery of those incriminating articles and his blood stained wearing apparels. The seized