The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts led to the reversal of conviction.

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 20.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athgarh in Sessions Trial Case No.396 of 2012 arising out of C.T Case No. 434 of 2012, corresponding to Tigiria P.S. Case No.102 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Athgarh.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ’) and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. Prosecution case is that sometime past the midnight of 24.07.2012, Jadu Ghadei (P.W.21) informed the brother of the deceased (P.W.1) that this accused, who is his son (Jadu’s son), caused the death of his wife Indumati Ghadei (deceased). The brother of the deceased, namely, Arakhita Behera (P.W.1) then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Tigiria Police Station.

3. The I.I.C., receiving the said written report, treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation. The I.O (P.W.27) in course of investigation, examined the informant (P.W.1), visited the spot and examined other witnesses. He then held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2). He also seized the blood stained and sample earth from the spot with some broken bangles and white napkin stained with blood, faded yellow colour chadar stained with blood and one mat stained with blood under the seizure list to that effect. The dead body of Indumati was then sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The accused was arrested and his wearing apparels were seized. It is stated that the accused while in police custody, made a statement as regards the keeping of Katari in his house and pursuant to the said statement, he is said to have led the I.O (P.W.27) as well as other witnesses in giving recovery of the said Katari from his house which had been kept underneath a loaded bag. The accused was then forwarded in custody to the Court. That weapon Katari being sent to the Doctor (P.W.29) for examination, his report is that with the said Katari, the injuries sustained by the deceased was possible. The incriminating articles were then sent for chemical examination through Court.

4. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC .

5. Learned SDJM, Athagarah on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the offence under section 302 of the IPC and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the said offence against the accused.

6. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined twenty nine (29) witnesses. As already stated, P.W.1 is the informant whereas P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.14 have been projected as the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Post occurrence witnesses have been examined as P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.15 to P.W.20 and P.W.22 to P.W.25.

P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the witnesses to the inquest whereas the Doctor, who had conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.29 and I.O has come to the witness box as P.W.27.

Besides leading the evidence by examining above the witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence an