Conviction based on unreliable witness testimony cannot be sustained; evidence must be consistent and corroborated to meet the burden of proof required for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1st March, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kandhamal, Camp at Baliguda, in Sessions Trial No.193 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.147 of 2011 corresponding to Balliguda P.S. Case No.50 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Balliguda.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offences under section 302/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 8the IPC9). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 IPC ; and rigorous imprisonment for rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for commission of the offence under section 323 of the with a direction that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

On 04.06.2011 around 11.00 a.m, Jagadeswar Pradhani had been to the mango tope on the outskirts of their Village- Mahasingi and without paying the price for the said consumed liquor had consumed liquor worth of Rs.10/- from this accused, namely, Dayanidhi and returned home. So, accused Dayanidhi with others, namely, Kaina @ Jayadev Digal, Gopi @ Gopinath Digal, Jamini @ Bhumita Digal, and Hana Digal followed him to his house. The accused Dayanidhi questioned Jagadeswar as to how he could leave the place without paying him the price for the consumed liquor. It is stated that at the instance of those four other persons (since acquitted), accused Dayanidhi then dealt a massive blow by means of a stout lathi on the head of Jagadeswar. Receiving the blow, Jagadeswar fell down. At that time, son of Jagadeswar, namely, Jaleswar Pradhani (P.W.1) weas returning from a village hotel carrying some curry and when he protested, it is stated that accused Dayanidhi also dealt a lathi blow on his hand. Jagadeswar was then shifted to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Baliguda where he was declared dead.

In the afternoon, Jaleswar Pradhani (P.W.1), the son of Jagadeswar (deceased) lodged a written report with the Sub- Inspector of Police, who, in the absence of the Inspector-in- Charge, was discharging the duty as such. The Sub-Inspector of Police treated said written report as FIR (Ext.2), registered the case and directed another Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I.-P.W.15) to take up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.15) examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. He then issued requisition for medical examination of the informant (P.W.1) and proceeded to the Sub-Divisional Hospital where the dead body of Jagadeswar was lying. He (P.W.15) held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.1). The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The I.O. (P.W.15) thereafter visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.17). He also seized the incriminating articles including one Salua lathi (stout lathi) from the spot in presence of witnesses under the seizure list, Ext.8/1. He further seized bloodstained earth and sample earth under seizure list, Ext.7/1. The spade was seized from the house of the informant (P.W.1) on 04.06.2011 under seizure list Ext.9/1. The wearing apparels of the deceased were seized being produced by the Police Havildar who had accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination. The seizure list prepared to that effect is Ext.10. Accused Dayanidhi then was arrested and medically examined. His wearing apparels were also seized. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On 23.06.2011, other four persons were arrested. On completi