BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J. - (1.) IN the present Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant challenges the order of conviction dated 20.12.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No.1 of 2002 under Section 302, IPC and consequent sentence to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that one Sambari Ho was married to Rasika Ho (deceased). The informant (P.W.3) is the brother of Sambari Ho. On 13.3.2001 at 5.00 P.M., the deceased came to the village of P.W.3 and during night slept on the verandah of Bahadulla Ho (P.W.1). At about 8.00 P.M. in the night, P.W.1 who happens to be the uncle of P.W.3 came to him (P.W.3) and informed him that Rasika Ho had been murdered by an unknown person while sleeping on his verandah. P.W.1 intimated P.W.3 that the deceased had suffered injury on his head. P.W.1 further informed P.W.3 that when P.W.1 came out from the house, he found one unknown person was running away from the spot and by that time Rasika Ho was already dead. Hearing this, the informant (P.W.3) came to the spot and found his brother -in -law Rasika Ho in a pool of blood. He also found an injury on the head of the deceased. Accordingly, P.W.3 lodged an F.I.R. which had been marked as Ext.2. P.W.13 took up the investigation. In the F.I.R., P.W.3 also mentioned that during last Kali Puja, his sister Sambari Ho (P.W.11) was sleeping in the house of Murgi Ho. At that time the appellant slept near her (P.W.11). As a result there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and for that the deceased assaulted the appellant. So the appellant in order to take revenge murdered the deceased. As indicated earlier on receiving the F.I.R. P.W.13 took up the investigation and during investigation, he recorded the statement of different witnesses, seized wearing apparels of the appellant and deceased, sent the dead body for Post -Mortem Examination and also arrested the appellant and recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thereafter, the appellant led the police and other witnesses to near the house of Laxmi Ho (P.W.6) where he had allegedly thrown the 'axe' (M.O.I) after dealing blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the weapon of offence was seized by the police and seized articles were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for Chemical Examination. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC. The plea of the appellant before the trial court is one of complete denial. The prosecution in order to prove charges examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The defence examined none. In examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant completely denied the occurrence. On completion of trial, the appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned trial court.
(3.) MRS . Usharani Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in holding out an order of conviction inasmuch as there existed many missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. According to her, the learned trial court has completely missed the important admission made by P.W.1 in his cross -examination to the effect that he did not know as to who assaulted the deceased. Further according to P.W.1 both the deceased and appellant were having good relationship. According to Mrs. Padhi the only other important witness was P.W.4. Though P.W.1 spoke about the presence of P.W.4 at the spot, strangely P.W.4 in her evidence never spoke about P.W.1 being present at the spot. According to Mrs. Padhi since the core prosecution story as told by P.W.1 in examination -in -chief got completely demolished in his cross -examination and since there was none to corroborate the version of P.W.4, the primary link in the chain of circumstantial evidence did not exist. Secondly, on the issue of weapon of offence, Mrs. Padhi submitted that M.O.I had neither been proved as weapon of offence nor any human blood was recovered from the said M.O.I. So it could not be accepted as weapon of offence. Thus, another vital link was missing out of the chain of circumstantial evidences. Thirdly, she submitted that since both P.Ws.1 and 4 deposed about good relationship between the appellant and deceased, the learned court below had gone wrong in coming to a conclusion that under the facts and circumstances motive of the appellant had been clearly established. Accordingly, she prayed that the Jail Criminal Appeal should be allowed and the appellant be set at liberty. Lastly, she submitted that the appellant has been in custody since 14.3.2001.;