Conviction for murder can be established based on credible eyewitness testimonies, even without independent witness support. The burden to explain incriminating circumstances lies with the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Two persons — the present appellant and the original appellant No.1 faced trial in S.T. Case No. 191 of 2001 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal for committing the murder of one Sarat Naik along with other charges. Both were convicted under Sections 302, 201, 452, 324/34 IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for 3 months under Section 302 IPC, RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, RI for 3 months under Section 201 IPC, RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, RI for 3 months under Section 452 IPC and RI for one year under Section 324 IPC. Said judgment is impugned in the present appeal. Be it noted that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant No.1, Bhaskar Behera having died, the appeal has abated against him.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: On 23.12.2000 in village Badamunda under Balimi P.S. in the district of Dhenkanal, while the deceased Sarat Nayak was having his dinner in his home at about 8 p.m., both appellants being armed with stick and axe arrived there and dragged him outside and then left the place with him. Wife of the deceased Kamali Naik went and informed her father-in-law, who went to the house of accused Bhaskar Behera and saw that both of them had assaulted the deceased by means of the aforementioned weapons and that the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries in front of their house. When the father of the deceased protested, both accused persons chased him and assaulted him with the same weapons causing injuries. He was taken to the hospital for treatment. The dead body of the deceased was not found at the spot thereafter despite search. On the next day morning at about 11 a.m., Kamali Naik went to Balimi Police Station and lodged a written report, basing on which Balimi P.S. Case No. 53 was registered under Sections 302/323/324/201/34 IPC followed by investigation. In course of investigation, the dead body was recovered from the well of a villager at the instance of the accused persons. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons.

3. The trial Court framed four charges against the accused persons, namely 460/34 IPC, 302/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC.

4. Accused persons took the plea of denial and false implication.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and proved 16 documents. It also proved 6 material objects. Defence did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary.

6. After analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court found a complete chain of circumstances proving the guilt of accused persons. As such, they were convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

7. Heard Mr. B.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

8. Mr. Mohanty assails the impugned judgment raising the following grounds;

A. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and therefore, the version of other witnesses should not have been accepted by the trial Court.

B. The conduct of the deceased revealed that he was himself a hardened criminal and so also his father (deceased appellant) being involved in a series of criminal cases.

C. Only relatives of the deceased were examined.

D. Prosecution did not explain as to how the dead body of the deceased came to the well of Kedar Pradhan.

9. Per contra, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi would argue that the strongest evidence on record is the ‘last seen’ evidence which is amply proved by the version of PW-5. Since she categorically stated that the accused persons being armed, dragge