Eyewitness testimony from interested parties may lead to reasonable doubt; lack of independent corroboration necessitates careful scrutiny of evidence in murder convictions.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The appellant calls in question the correctness of the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri on 25.06.2001 in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1999, whereby he being convicted of the offence under Section 302 of IPC , was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated is that on 10.05.1997 at about 8.00 p.m. when the informant Pilaram Sagaria and his father were sitting on the verandah of their house, the present appellant and three other persons, namely, Kunjami Chenna, Madkami Sukra and Madkami Budura, scaled the boundary wall of their home and abused his father saying why he had forcibly taken the drum of the Jatra Party and threatened to kill them both. Thereafter, they pelted stones due to which the informant sustained injury near his ear and to save himself, he hid behind a tree near his house while his father entered inside the house while closed the door. All the accused persons then holding bows and arrows and tangia came inside their house by breaking open the door and assaulted the informant's father, who ran out to save his life. At that time, the appellant shot an arrow from his bow, which pierced his chest causing him to fall down. The accused persons then assaulted him due to which he died on the spot. The informant’s mother came to rescue but she was threatened. They left the spot after taking away gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5000/-. The matter was informed to the village member and others. On the next day, informant went to Mathili police station and lodged FIR leading to registration of P.S. Case No.43 of 1997 followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 457 /337/427/506/380/302/34 of IPC .

3. The defence plea was of denial.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses and proved thirteen documents. Besides, two material objects were proved. Defence, on the other hand, did not adduce any evidence.

5. The trial Court found that of the nine witnesses, only the informant (P.W.4) and wife of the deceased (P.W.5) were eyewitnesses. Analyzing the evidence of these two witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, namely, the post-mortem report and the evidence of the autopsy surgeon (P.W.1), the trial Court believed the prosecution case that the deceased had died because of the piercing of arrow shot by the appellant into his right side chest.

Further, analyzing the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the trial Court found that the case against the present appellant was clearly proved but insofar as the other accused persons were concerned, the evidence against them was not adequate. Basically on such findings, while acquitting the other accused persons of the charges, the trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. As such, he was convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

6. Heard Mr. A.K. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

7. Mr. Dash assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds:-

i. The prosecution did not cite any independent witness and relied entirely on the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, who being the son and wife respectively of the deceased, were interested witnesses.

ii. The trial Court should not have believed the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, as it being a dark night, they could not have seen the occurrence.

iii. There is inconsistency regarding the spot of occurrence in the versions of P.Ws.4 and 5.

iv