A conviction for murder can be established on the basis of a credible solitary eyewitness, while absence of direct involvement leads to acquittal of another accused.

Judgment :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and hence, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants faced trial along with one Rajib Kumar Mallick @ Piki in S.T. Case No. 48/6 of 2003 in the Court of learned Adhoc. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela for committing the murder of one Arjuna Mohananda. While Rajib Kumar Mallick was acquitted, the present appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.

3. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:

On 28.03.2002, one Narayan Naik was alone in his quarter in Sector-16 of Rourkela. One Dusmanta Sahoo, who happens to be his friend, came to his quarter and stayed for the night. The next day, that is, 29.03.2002 was the day of Holi. Narayan went to play Holi with his friends while Dusmanta stayed back. Narayan returned with his friends at about 2 P.M. and thereafter went to take bath in the river. At about 3.30 P.M., Arjuna Mohananda (deceased) came on a scooter to the quarter. Both he and Dusmanta played cards. After some time, Narayan returned and went to the house of his maternal uncle to bring curry. Subsequently Pintu, Raju, accused Anil Barua, accused Khetramohan @ Mangu and another unknown boy came to the quarter. Mangu took the scooter key from the deceased with the intent of going somewhere. Narayan arrived with the curry thereafter and talked with those persons outside the quarter. Then he went on the scooter of Arjuna Mohananda with accused Anil.

When Dusmanta went to take bath in the bathroom, he heard a gunshot and came running outside. He found deceased Arjun Mohananda lying on the cot with severe bleeding. Mangu, Pintu and another boy rushed inside the room. While Pintu was holding a revolver, Mangu was holding a Bhujali. Pintu fired a shot aiming at Arjuna while Mangu repeatedly assaulted him by means of the Bhujali. Anil was keeping guard at the rear side of the door and Raju was at the front side. The unknown boy shouted on seeing the informant ‘Dhara Mara’.

The informant, in order to save his life ran away and returned after some time. Narayan also returned and the informant narrated the incident to him, whereupon Narayan closed the doors and windows. Thereafter, both went to the police station and on the way, they informed about the incident to the elder brother of Mahesh Nag and Raju Paul. Dusmanta reported the matter orally at the Police Station, whereupon police registered P.S. Case No. 35 of 2002 and took up investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellants, Rajib Kumar Mallick, Pintu @ Aswini Kumar and Raju Toppo. It is to be noted that Pintu @ Aswini Kumar and Raju Toppo are absconders.

4. The plea of the accused persons was of denial and false implication.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and proved 12 documents. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any evidence, either oral or documentary.

6. The trial Court, after scanning the evidence on record, found no evidence against accused Rajib Kumar Mallick and therefore acquitted him. Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, the trial Court heavily relied upon the eyewitness account of the informant (P.W.6) read with the medical evidence as also the evidence relating to disclosure of the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Mangu. As such, the trial Court was of the view that prosecution was successful in establishing the case against the present appellants and convicted and sentenced them as already stated hereinbefore.

7. Heard Mr