The need for conclusive evidence in criminal conviction is paramount, and rehabilitative measures may be preferable for lesser offenses.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No. 668 /48 of 1997 [arising out of G.R. Case No. 97(A)/95], whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months.

2. Heard Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 01.02.1995 morning the informant, P.W.1 got information that his son Daria had been murdered. Getting the information, he came to the spot and found his son Daria was lying dead by the side of a half constructed house near the house of Babaji Swain. A chadar had been put around his neck. The informant got the information from one Bipin Malik (P.W.2) of his village that on the previous night accused Pradip Swain @ Nanda asked the deceased Daria to pay him Rs.20/-. But, when Daria refused to pay, the accused injured Daria on the thigh by a knife and threatened him that if Daria would not pay the money, the accused would kill him. After reporting this incident to some other people present in the locality, Daria went to the house of the accused to complain before his parents. While Daria was proceeding to the house of the accused, the latter chased him in angry mood and in the next morning Daria was found lying dead. The informant suspected that accused Pradip Swain and his father Babaji @ Brajakishore Swain, in furtherance of a common intention had killed Daria.

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant (P.W.1), police registered the case and investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the accused for the alleged commission of offence u/s.302 of I.P.C. The accused took a stance of complete denial and claimed trial. Accordingly, he was put to trial on the charge, as mentioned above.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited four documents. Out of ten witnesses, P.W.1 is the informant; P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 were the witnesses to the occurrence that the accused demanding money to the deceased and causing bleeding injury on the thigh; P.W.4 was a witness to the inquest; P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 were examined to prove the motive of the accused; P.W.9 was the medical officer, who examined the dead body and P.W.10 was the I.O. of the present case.

6. The learned trial court after analyzing the evidence on record in paragraph-10 of the judgment held as under:-

“10. So, the first conduct does not lead to the inference that it was the accused who assaulted the deceased in order to kill him. As regards the conduct at the house of the accused, as I have already stated that P.Ws.3 and 5 heard a quarrel, but did not see what happened in course of the quarrel. P.W.2 alone saw the accused and his father manhandling the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously argued that the fact manhandling of the deceased would show that the father and the son, with a view to driving away the deceased from their home, pushed and assaulted the deceased and in all probability, in so doing the present accused might have dealt severe fist blows on the abdomen and the chest of the deceased which resulted in the latter's death. This is too far-fetched a conjecture to make presumptions as suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor. The eyewitness, P.W.2, has not seen the actual assault. The lea