The defendant's conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and the prosecution's failure to examine the investigating officer, raising reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this JCRLA, the convict/Appellant (Gouri @ Gouranga Pradhan) challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, Circuit at Banpur in Sessions Trial Case No.1/1 of 2003, whereby the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life 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

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 16/17.06.2002, at about 4 am, the accused/appellant Gouri @ Gouranga Pradhan, due to previous animosity, committed murder of deceased Naba Pradhan, by slitting his throat by means of a knife on the eve of Ramalila opera exhibition during Raja festival at Saliadam colony Domuni Thakurani.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the brother of the deceased Kabiraj Pradhan, (P.W.22) lodged a F.I.R, before the Banpur Police station vide Banapur P.S Case No.113 dated 17.06.2002 and accordingly investigation was conducted against the accused appellant and subsequently thereafter on 18.06.2002, the appellant was arrested.

4. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet under Section 302 I.P.C and the accused was committed to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurdha, Circuit at Banpur in S.T Case No.1/1 of 2003 to face the trial and finally convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C.

II. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously argued that the appellant is innocent. The plea of the defence is one of complete denial and false implication. The specific case/plea of the defence as it borne out from the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. is that he (accused) is in no way connected or concerned with the death of the deceased. He had further deposed that he cannot say who has killed the deceased, however, he was not involved in the incident.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that, in the persent case, the order of conviction has been awarded basing on the sole testimony of the P.W.5. But close scrutiny of the statement of the P.W.5 would show that he has actually not witnessed the role played by the appellant by cutting the throat of the deceased. P.W.5 has himself contradicted his own statement by stating in Para.10 of his cross examination that after the shout “SAPA” “SAPA”, people shouted that the throat of a person was cut and he then got up and saw that Naba Pradhan was running towards the stage with profused bleeding from his neck and fell down. In addition, P.W.5 has exaggerated the fact that the appellant followed deceased to the place of jatra and was sitting behind him. After some time, appellant asked for a BIDI to deceased and the latter complied the request and there after appellant again asked for a matchbox and when deceased was about to hand over a match box, appellant caught hold of the head of deceased in one hand and cut the throat of deceased by means of a knife. The P.W.5 has admitted that he had made the aforesaid exaggerated statement for the first time before the learned trial Court without having stated the same before the investigating officer at the time of recording of his statement under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.5 has further deposed that Sukumari Dei (P.W.11), Subash Pradhan