The court ruled that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and unresolved doubts regarding evidence undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the overturning of the murder conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The appellant assails the judgment passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur on 18.12.2001 in S.C. Case No. 21 of 2000 whereby being convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC , he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

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

On 08.12.1999, while the informant Mochiram Patro was working in his threshing floor, BPL rice was being distributed in front of the house of one Ranjit Kumar Majhi. Hearing a commotion, he came out to inquire. He saw his younger brother, Ladukishore Patro (deceased) lying with bleeding injuries in front of the house of Ranjit Majhi. He also saw the accused, Bijaya Nayak holding a knife with blood on it and that he was trying to flee. The informant restrained the accused by holding him from the rear and took him to the house of Igni Patra and made him sit on the verandah. He also claims to have snatched away the blood stained knife from the hand of the accused and kept it under a straw heap. Ranjit Majhi informed him that his brother had died because of stab injuries caused by the accused while he was returning after collecting BPL rice. The assault was due to family dispute. The accused stabbed the deceased on the stomach and chest two to four times which was witnessed by Debraj Dash and Kabiraj Behera. They had all tried to restrain the accused during the assault due to which Kabiraj Behera sustained injury on the left thumb. Since the accused threatened to kill anyone who tried to restrain him, no one dared to do so. Thereafter, the accused slit the throat of the deceased and was caught by the informant while fleeing from the spot. The informant submitted a written report before the OIC of Kabisurya Nagar Police Station which was registered as P.S. Case No. 112 of 1999, followed by investigation.

Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 302 /324/506 of IPC .

3. The accused took the plea of denial.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses and 21 documents. Besides, prosecution also proved 8 material objects. On the other hand, defense did not adduce any evidence.

5. The trial Court found that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and the spot was in front of the house of Ranjit Majhi (P.W.2). As regards the authorship of the crime, the trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and the recovery of the blood stained knife along with blood stained clothes of the accused, held that the prosecution case was clearly proved. Accordingly, he held the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as already stated hereinbefore.

6. Being aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard Mr. Mohammad Faradish, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned ASC for the State.

8. Mr. Faradish would argue that the entire case of the prosecution is beset with serious doubts inasmuch as who actually lodged the F.I.R is not clear from the evidence. The informant claims to have lodged the written report but the I.O. stated that he received a telephonic report call about the incident. Secondly, the seizure of the knife is entirely doubtful because the informant himself admits to have snatched away the knife from the hand of the accused and kept it under the straw heap. Further, there are material contradictions in the evidence relating to seizure of the wearing apparels as stated by P.W. 2 and the I.O., P.W.17. The statements of P.W.1 were found to contradict his earlier statement.

9. Per contra, Ms. Subhalxmi Devi would submit that P.W.1 being the immediate post-occurrence witness was the first pe