The conviction of an accused cannot stand without admissible evidence, and the burden of proof remains with the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The appellant before us faced trial along with three others in Sessions Case No. 31/2002/267/2002 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur for committing the murder of one K.Kankeya Reddy. By judgment passed on 16.09.2003, he was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

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

On 13.09.2001 at about 8.00 P.M., when the informant K.Sabitri Amma of Dura Bada Sahi in the district of Ganjam had gone to the market to bring ‘Nasa’ (sniffing tobacco) she saw her younger son K.Kankaya Reddy being assaulted by the people of Bauri Sahi, namely, Braja Das, Hadi Das (present appellant), Bangali Das, Kailash Das and others. She saw them hacking her son and of taking him away towards their Sahi. Seeing this, the informant shouted but to no avail. She rushed to the house of the Sarpanch but he was not present at home. On the next morning, she went to Bauri Sahi and asked about her son to Hadi Das and others but they did not say anything. She then went in search of her son towards Kumarbandha Padia and found him lying dead. She returned home and informed her elder son Rajarao Reddy. According to the informant, the assailants had killed her son due to previous grudge.

She therefore, went with her elder son and a member of her community, K.Krishna Reddy to Gopalpur Police Station and orally reported the matter. Her complaint was reduced to writing and Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2001 was registered, followed by investigation.

Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 302 /34 of I.P.C.

3. The defence took the plea of denial and false implication.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. It also proved 10 material objects. On the other hand, the defense examined one witness.

5. The trial Court found that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution had turned hostile but then relying on the statements of accused Hadi Das leading to discovery of the weapons of offence and the evidence of human blood of ‘A’ group found thereon, it held that the weapons were used by Hadi Das and he had concealed the same. It was further held that the accused Hadi Das could not explain under what circumstances he assaulted the deceased causing so many injuries. As such, while finding no incriminating evidence against the other accused persons, the trial Court acquitted them but returned a finding of guilt against Hadi Das and convicted him for the offence as already stated.

6. Heard Ms. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned AGA for the State.

7. Before delving into the grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment, we deem it proper to examine the record ourselves to be subjectively satisfied as regards the correctness of findings of the trial Court. We have found that none of the so-called witnesses including the informant, who is none other than mother of the deceased, supported the prosecution case even remotely. Though their statements supposedly made before the I.O. during investigation were confronted to them as well as the I.O., yet there being no admissible evidence on record, the same are of no value. As regards the claim that the deceased sustained as many as 26 injuries most of which were caused by sharp cutting weapons likely to cause death, the I.O. seized three swords (M.Os. VIII, IX and X). The disclosure statement of the accused, on which the trial Court placed much emphasis was proved as Exhibit 1/1. He supposedly conf