The conviction under Section 302 IPC was overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding dying declarations, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) No.72 of 2012/52 of 2013 arising out of G.R. Case No.1663 of 2011 corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No.642 of 2011 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Angul. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The prosecution case, is that in the intervening night of 15/16.11.2011 at about 10.30 p.m. one Narendra (deceased) was lying in a critical condition with injuries near the cabin shop of one Dusasan of village Balasinga. Nakafudi Sahu (P.W.1) who is the father of the Narendra (deceased) was informed by his employee Pradip Mishra about the same. So, he rushed to the spot with said Pradip and found his son Narendra lying in a critical condition with bleeding injuries and the accused Santosh Sahu, who was there near the spot accompanied them to the hospital. It is stated that they shifted the injured Narendra in a police vehicle, which arrived there. In course of treatment at Angul hospital, Narendra succumbed to injury. During such treatment when Narendra had regained his sense, he had revealed that accused Santosh had struck him by bhujali and he was the author of the injuries received by him. He had also stated that accused Santosh having caused the injury had escaped from the spot hurriedly.

Nakafudi Sahu (Informant-P.W.1), the father of the deceased having lodged the information in writing with the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.), Angul Police Station, the same was treated as an F.I.R. and investigation commenced.

3. In course of investigation, the Informant (P.W.1) was examined by the Investigating Officer ( I.O.-P.W.14) and he then examined other witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was also sent for post mortem examination and some incriminating articles were seized in course of investigation. The accused being arrested, his wearing apparels were also seized. All those incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through court.

4. On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14) submitted the Final Form placing this accused and two others to face the trial for commission of offence under sections 302/34, I.P.C.

5. Learned S.D.J.M., Angul having received the Final Form as above took cognizance of the said offences and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial against this accused and two others commenced by framing the charge for the above offences as against them.

6. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined 14 witnesses. Out of whom, the Informant as already stated is P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased whereas P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased, who had accompanied the deceased to the hospital and P.W.4 is the mother deceased. The person who had informed P.W.1 about the fact that Narendra was lying in a critical condition with severe bleeding injuries has been examined as P.W.3. A co-villager has come to the witness box as P.W.5 when the wife of the deceased has been examined as P.W.6. The person, who had informed P.W.3 about the said fact first has been examined as P.W.8. A witness in support of the extra judicial confession said to have been made by Tankad