The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a valid oral dying declaration, underscoring that quality evidence outweighs the lack of independent witnesses.

Judgment :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The appellant faced trial with two others in S.T. No.489 of 1998 in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack for committing the murder of one Sukanta Kumar Senapati. The other two accused persons were acquitted while the present appellant, being convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C., was sentenced imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case, in brief is as follows:-

On 31.07.1997 on Adashpur Road under Niali Police Station, the deceased Sukanta Kumar Senapati was assaulted by three of his co-villagers namely, Basant Pradhan (present appellant) by means of a Farsa, one Susanta Mohapatra by means of Sword and the son of one Sura Mohapatra by means of Bhujali. The assailants dealt several blows with the weapons on the head and neck of the deceased causing severe injuries. The deceased shouted for help, hearing which, the nephew of the deceased namely, Gopal Krushna Senapati, who was going towards the village square rushed to the spot and saw the assault. He thereafter, cried for help. Seeing him the assailants fled away from the spot. Gopal found his uncle with severe bleeding injuries. One Jagu Sahu also arrived at the spot hearing the shouts and asked as to what happened. The deceased, with much difficulty stated that Basu Pradhan, Tukuna Mohapatra and the son of Sura Mohapatra had assaulted him by means of farsa, sword and bhujali respectively. Several persons of the village namely, Subash Mohapatra, Umesh Mohapatra, Nursingha Mohapatra, Braja Kishore Mohapatra and others arrived at the spot. Gopal carried the deceased to Adaspur Hospital along with his aunt Manjulata Senapati, Jagu Sahu, Satyabrata Mohapatra and Braja Mohapatra. But the doctor declared him dead. Gopal thereafter, went to Niali Police Station and lodged a written report about the occurrence and also about the threat given by the accused persons eight days prior to the occurrence of killing the deceased. Basing on the report, P.S. Case No.115 was registered under Section 302/34 IPC followed by the investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant and two other persons namely, Hemanta Kumar Pradhan and Panchanan Pradhan under Sections 302/120-B/34 of IPC.

3. In course of trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses and proved twelve documents. Defence did not adduce any evidence, either, oral or documentary.

4. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court found that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 clearly proved the prosecution case against accused Basanta to the effect that he had assaulted the deceased with the farsa causing his death. It was further held that he was one of the authors of the crime. The Trial Court however, did not find any evidence against the co-accused persons. Thus, while the co-accused persons were acquitted, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

5. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the Appellant and Miss. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State

6. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Rout would submit that the occurrence having taken place in a public road, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine independent witnesses to prove its case. Instead, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, who are interested witnesses. The others are post-occurrence witnesses who are not competent to state about the occurrence. It is further stated that the trial Court overlooked the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 5 as brought out from the I.O. in cross-examination. That apart, though P.W. 1 referred to five persons as having arrived at the spot immediately after the occu