The court ruled that conviction solely relies on circumstantial evidence must prove every link, and witness hostility weakens prosecution's case.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and imposing rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and accused is also entitled for benefit under Section 428 of Cr.PC.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.23 and also marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32 and also MO.1 to MO.6 are marked. The defendants have not lead any evidence or marked any documents. The Trial court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered the issue with regard to the point No.1 and 3 that is abuse made against the deceased as well as causing of threat to the P.W.1 and answered as negative. However, answered the point No.2 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused and particularly in paragraph No.34 comes to the conclusion that the accused enraged assaulted on the head of his father with iron rod, as a result he sustained injuries and later he died and thereby he committed the murder of his father. In other words, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed the murder of his father by assaulting him with iron rod and hence, answered the same.

5. It is also the reasoning that on account of assault made by the accused, his clothes were blood stained and iron rod was also blood stained and it clearly shows that accused assaulted on the head of his father with iron rod and he sustained injuries and died due to the said injuries and the same is observed in paragraph No.33 and relies upon Ex.P.12 seizure mahazar relating to the cloths of the accused and iron rod used for assault and so also the evidence of Doctors- P.W.10 to P.W.15 and so also Ex.P.21- RFSL report, so also Ex.P.23-serology report that clothes of the deceased and accused and iron rod are bloodstained with human blood and belongs to ‘B’ group of blood. However, the Court also makes note of it that blood group of the accused and his deceased father Adam are having ‘B’ positive blood group. The blood groups and the blood stains found on their clothes and iron rod are all matched and there is no explanation by the accused about how his clothes and iron rod were blood stained and hence, convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses and fails to take note that complainant himself has not supported the case of prosecution. The counsel also would submits that even eye witnesses who have been quoted as star witnesses of the prosecution also they have not turned hostile and they have also not supported the case of prosecution. The P.W.1 has deposed that his father-in- law fell down from the coconut tree while climbing the coconut trees and sustained injuries and died and he also not supported the case of prosecution. Since the complainant himself has turned hostile, the Court is not justified in convicting the accused. The eye witnesses named by the prosecution in the charge sheet are examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and they also turned hostile. The counsel also would vehemently contend that even though prosecution relies upon the evide