The Court upheld the life imprisonment conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming the case as murder due to the absence of sudden provocation and corroborative evidence supporting the eyewitness's testimony.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence to imprisonment for life on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in C.T.Case No.196 of 2003.

2. The charge was for murder simplicitor. The prosecution case, in short, is that, on that fateful evening i.e. on 19.12.2002 at about 5 P.M., the appellant and the deceased were returning to the house of the latter after taking liquor from the village and on the way near the hut of P.W.3, they abused each other. Hearing the shout, P.W.3 came out from his hut and saw that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his head and face by a lathi he was holding. The appellant was also seen assaulting the deceased by pressing that lathi on different parts of the body of the deceased forcibly including his scrotum. The deceased fell down on the ground and died. The appellant then fled away. Said P.W.3 then disclosed the occurrence to the son of the deceased, the informant (P.W.2). He then lodged information in Bondhugaon police outpost under Narayanpatna Police Station on 20.12.2002, resulting registration of Narayanpatna P.S.Case No.111/21.12.2002. P.W.8, the then O.I.C. of Narayanpatna Police Station, took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body (Ext.1) and prepared a spot map (Ext.8). The appellant was arrested on 22.12.2002 and while in police custody, he gave recovery of weapons of offence i.e., lathi and two pieces of stones. The said lathi and stone pieces were sent for chemical examination and the report has been marked as Ext.14. Ultimately charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The appellant as accused examined himself as the sole defence witness.

4. Learned trial court, relying on the ocular evidence of the sole eyewitness (P.W.3) and other corroborated materials like leading to discovery of weapons of offence by the appellant and the medical evidence etc., has concluded the guilt of murder on the appellant sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued to discredit the version of the sole eyewitness on the ground that, it is not possible to see the occurrence at a distance of 60 meters. It is further argued that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., which itself creates a doubt on the prosecution version.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that, the conclusion rendered by the learned trial court is without any infirmity in view of the evidences brought on record through P.W.3, P.W.7 and other witnesses. It is also submitted that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is well explained on the face of the record and moreover, nothing was asked from the side of the defence to that effect either to the informant (P.W.2) or to the I.O.(P.W.8).

7. We have carefully heard both the parties and minutely scrutinized the record of the learned trial court. Being it a case of murder, nature of death as homicidal is not disputed by either party. In this regard, P.W.7, the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has stated to have found six injuries on the head and face, which are mostly punctured wounds and opined that the said injuries are sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. So, hardly any doubt remains about homicidal death of the deceased.

8. Amongst the prosecution witnesses, P.W.3 as stated earlier is the sole eyewitness, P.W.2 is the