Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa confirming the judgment of conviction and order sentencing the appellant to suffer life imprisonment. The appellant was the sole accused.
(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 16-11-1989 Damodar Patel (PW-1) while had gone to respond the call of nature found one dead body lying on the sandy riverbed of Hati River. There was only chaddi on the dead body. The pant and shirt were lying at a distance from the dead body and one motorcycle was kept by the side of the pillar of the bridge. PW-1 came to the village and told about the same to one Madhu Naik. Both of them went to police station at Jaipatna and orally reported the incident in the police station at Jaipatna. The report was reduced to writing. A U. D. Case No. 9/89 was registered. The Investigating Officer held inquest of the dead body and the same was sent to post-mortem. The dead body was identified to be of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302, IPC in the Sessions Court. The defence of the appellant was one of total denial.
(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 39 witnesses. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence only. PW-1 is the informant. Siba Sankar Padhi (PW-2) is the father of the deceased who identified the dead body of the deceased and found that gold chain, which the deceased was usually wearing, was missing. Binayak Behera (PW-8) deposed that the deceased and accused were moving together on 15-11-1989 on motor vehicle and that the deceased had told him that he was to purchase a revolver from the accused. Udayanath Panigrahi (PW-9) also found the accused and the deceased together taking tea in the shop of PW-8 on 15-11-1989. Malaya Chandra Maher (PW-13) stated that the accused purchased a soap at about 9.15 P.M. on 15-11-1989 and Pradumna Kumar Mehar (PW-14), who accompanied him, found the accused washing his cloth. PW-15 is the hotel keeper. The accused and the deceased were last seen by him on 15-11-1989. He found that the deceased was wearing a gold chain. PW-16 identified the pant of the accused. PW-19 stated that one Rama Saraf offered him to purchase one gold chain for Rs. 4,400/- on 16-11-1989. Kusa alias Sona Mehar (PW-20) deposed that Chasiram Meher came with a gold chain and weighed it and received the gold chain on payment of Rs. 4,400/- on 17-11-1989; the gold chain (M.O.I.) was given to Ramachandra Saraf after coming to know that it was involved in a murder case. The gold chain was seized in the presence of PW-21. PW-22 is a Medical Officer, who held post-mortem of the deceased. PW-23 is a witness to the seizure of shawl, pant and shirt stained with blood. PWs. 25, 26 and 27 are the witnesses for seizure. PW-29 is a witness to the discovery of Kati (M. O. VII) seized from inside the sandy waterbed of Hati River. PW-31 is one of the I.Os., who recorded the F.I.R. and PW-32 is the I.O., who sent other articles for chemical examination. PW-33 is a witness who saw the deceased and the accused going towards Jaipatna at about 6.00 P.M. on 15-11-1989. PW-34 is one of the I.Os., who seized Kati and gold chain. The learned Sessions Judge having appreciated the evidence on record summed up in para 20 thus:- "The evidence of PWs. are cogent and consistent to bring about a conviction on the evidence are unimpeachable in character and have shown unerringly the guilt of the accused. The accused had intentionally committed murder of the deceased which is found in the evidence of movements of the accused on 15-11-1989 in and without the company of the deceased and the deadbody of the deceased was found on the next day of the occurrence with the injuries on the deceased and missing of M. O. I from the person of the deceased, recovery of M. Os. IV, V and VI and the blood stains found in M. Os. VI, IV and V and the blood stains found in M.O. VI and recovery of the M.O. VII from inside water from river bed and the recovery of M. O. I of the deceased which was disposed of by sale after the occurrence have completed the chain of circumstances leading to a definite conclusion that the accused intentionally committed murder of the deceased. There are some discrepancies in the evidence which do not have any adverse impact on the charge of the prosecution." ;