Orissa High Court
Bijaya Naik vs State Of Orissa on 21 July, 2015
Author: Vinod Prasad
Bench: Vinod Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2002
From the judgment and order dated 17.06.2002 passed by
Sri J.P.Mishra, Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in
S.C. No. 266 of 2000
-----------
Bijaya Naik ... Appellant
- Versus -
State of Orissa ... Respondent
For Appellant ... Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, Adv.
For Respondent ... Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra.
Addl. Standing Counsel.
--------------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VINOD PRASAD
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO
Date of hearing: 01.07.2015 Date of judgment: 21.07.2015
Vinod Prasad, J.Appellant Bijaya Naik is in appeal before us, u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging his conviction u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment therefore dated 17.6.2002, imposed by Sessions Judge, district Berahampur in S.C. No. 266 of 2000, State versus 2 Bijaya Naik (arising out of G.R.Case No. 11 of 2000, J.M.F.C. Digapahandi, district Berahampur).
2. Prosecution case, stated concisely, as was got slated in the FIR Ext.6 by the informant Ballabh Naik/PW3 and subsequently unfurled during the trial by the prosecution witnesses, evinces that the appellant Bijaya Naik, his wife Shanti Naik(the deceased), Ballabh Naik informant/PW3, his wife Basini Naik/PW4 and other witnesses all were residents of village Basudevpur under Digapanadi police station district Ganjam, and were very well known to each other and in fact appellant is the nephew of the informant and his wife. On the ill fated incident day, 22.1.2000, at about 4 a.m. informant/PW3 and his wife/PW4, while they were sleeping, heard the shrieks of the deceased 'Marigali-Marigali' and when they rushed out of their house, they spotted in the moon light that the deceased lying in an injured condition and the appellant standing by her side holding a blood stained Kati/ M.O.III (sharp edged cutting weapon) and a crowbar/ M.O.II. Accused appellant accosted PWs 3 & 4, informant and his wife, as "I am killing my own wife If anybody intervenes will also be similarly killed". Such a fear loaded threat forbade the informant and his wife /PW4 to approach the appellant and the deceased any further, who then retreated and bolted themselves inside their house. Meanwhile other people gathered at the spot, therefore after 5-10 minutes the informant could muster courage to come out.
3. Incident information was relayed to the police station Digapahandi at 9 a.m. by Medha Shyamghan/PW1, president of village committee, on phone, which was received by A.S.I. Anadi Charan Pradhan who penned it down in the station diary vide entry no. 472 and then he entrusted A.S.I. Sachidnanda Subudhi/PW13, Havildar P.C.Das, Const. G.Buludu/PW7, Shyama 3 Naik, and village watchman Ishwar Naik to inquire into the matter. Arriving at the village at about 10-10.15 a.m., A.S.I. Sachidananda Subudhi/PW 13 received a written FIR/Ext.6 from the informant/PW3 slated by Narasingha Sethi/PW2, which he treated as the actual FIR and consequently commenced investigation on it's basis after instructing Havildar P.C. Das to carry Ext.6 to the police station for registration of the case and the formal FIR, Ext/6/2, which was registered at the police station on 22.1.2000 at 11 a.m. as P.S. Case No. 10 of 2000, u/s 302 I.P.C. by the same A.S.I.
4. Setting investigation a foot Ist I.O./PW13 recorded informant's and scribe statements and then examined other witnesses Basini Naik/PW4, Trinath Naik/PW10, Pano Naik/PW11, Iswar Naik/PW6, Khalli Naik/PW5, and Bana Naik/PW12 and then came to the incident spot at 12.30 p.m. where Const. P.C.Das, informed him regarding registration of formal FIR, Ext 6/2 as already mentioned above. Inquest Ext.1 was performed over the cadaver of the deceased between 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and inquest memo/ Ext.1 was slated. Spot map Ext. 15 was sketched. Corpse of the deceased was dispatched to M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital for autopsy through Constable G.Buludu/PW7 and village watchman Ishwar Naik/PW6 with dead body chalan Ext.8. Blood stained earth, sample earth, broken bangles and mali (Pasara mali) were seized vide seizure memo Ext.2. Accused appellant was arrested same day at 4 p.m. at the spot itself and it is alleged that, while in custody, after making a confessional statement, Ext.5, the appellant got incriminating articles Goda Khola(small iron crowbar) one khanati , one kati and one small knife recovered from inside his house after opening the lock in the presence of the witnesses. Ext.4 is the seizure memo of all these articles. Wearing attires of the accused consisting of One 4 Lungi stained with blood (M.O.I), one Chaddar (Gamacha/M.O.VII), were also seized vide Ext 3. Vide requisition Ext. 10/2, nail clippings of the accused was required to be taken which was taken by Dr. Ram Mohan Panda/ PW9 whose report is Ext. 10 and seizure of nail clipping by the I.O. is Ext. 11. Deceased apparels were also seized by the I.O./PW13 vide seizure list Ext.12. Further investigation from 25.1.2000 was carried out by R.K.Senapati/ PW 14 who examined other witnesses, received post mortem examination report/ Ext.9 and dispatched incriminating articles for forensic expert examination to Dy. Director, RFSL vide Ext. 13 through J.M.F.C. Digapahandi. On 6.4.2000, IInd I.O./PW 14 handed over further investigation to his successor S.I. B.B. Mohanti who wrapped up the investigation by forwarding charge sheet against the accused appellant on 18.5.2000.
5. Dead body post mortem examination was conducted on 20.3.2000 at 11.45 a.m. by Dr. Sachchidananda Mohanti/PW8, lecturer in F.M.T. Dept., M.K. C.G.Medical College & Hospital and hereinafter noted ante mortem physical injuries were detected on the cadaver of the deceased:-
(1) Lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 0.75 cm x vault deep situated transversely above the mastoid process starting 2 cm behind the upper pole of left ear extending backwards.
(2) Lacerated wounld of size 2 cm x 0.75 x vault deep situated 1 cm below the external injury No.1 extending transversely backwards.
(3) Lacerated wound of size4 cm x 1.5 cm x vault deep situated obliquely behind the roof of left ear involving pinna where a portion of pinna grossly crushed and detached from the stump.
(4) Lacerated wound of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, situated over the left ear lobule where lobule is separated and the external injury merged with the external injury No.3 posteriorly.
(5) Two lacerated wounds of varying sizes which merged with each other and measured 6.5 cm x 3 cm 5 x vault deep situated 1 cm behind the left ear lobule extending backwards and upwards.
(6) Linear split laceration of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep situated just behind the left mandible starting 2.5 cm below and left to symphysis menti extending left laterally.
(7) Contused abrasion of size 3 cm x 1 cm situated over the left shoulder 4cm below the lateral end of clavicles.
(8) Contusion of size 3cm x 1 cm situated 3cm
behind external injury No.7 and 2 cm below left
shoulder tip.
Internal dissection of the corpse revealed that scalp tissue underneath and surrounding the injury involving left side vault was contused with linear facture of 8 cm involving masto temporal bone. Pole of right tempo parietal region had soft arachnoid haemorrhage, upper neck involving sternocleidomastoid at the level of thyroid cartilage and above was contused in an area of 8 cm x 2 cm. All the injuries were ante mortem inflicted by hard and blunt object and cumulatively were fatal to result in death which, in fact, had occasioned due to coma precipitated by injury to the brain. 24 to 30 hours had passed when the death had occurred. Deceased autopsy examination report, as noted above, is Ext.9.
6. Observing necessary procedural formalities u/s 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant was sent up for trial before Sessions Court vide committal order dated 21.8.2000 by J.M.F.C., Digapahandi resulting in registration of S.C. No. 266 of 2000, State versus Bijaya Naik, in the court of Sessions Judge, Berahampur who later on charged the appellant with offence u/s 302 I.P.C. on 8.11.2000 and since the appellant abjured that charge, to establish his guilt, trial proceeded according to Sessions case procedure.
67. Prosecution rested its case by examining in all 14 witnesses, out of whom Ballabh Naik, the informant/PW3, his wife Basini Naik/PW3, Ishwar Naik/PW6 and Trinath Naik/PW10 are the fact witnesses. M. Shyamghan/PW1, Narsingh Sethi/PW2, Khilla Naik/PW5, Pana Naik/PW11 and Bana Naik/PW12 are the post occurrence witnesses, G. Buludu/PW7 is a police constable, Dr. Sachchinanda Mohanti/PW8 is post mortem doctor and Dr. Ram Mohan Panda/PW9 is nail clipping doctor. First I.O. is A.S.I. Sachchidananda Subudhi/PW13 and second I.O. is A.S.I. Rajendra Kumar Senapati/PW14. Besides, prosecution also tendered fifteen documentary exhibits and seven material exhibits to fasten appellant's guilt.
8. Without examining any defence witness, appellant was satisfied by mere denial of all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidences and pleaded innocence and false implication in his u/s 313 Cr.P.C. statement.
9. As recorded in the opening paragraph learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story and its witnesses and determined that the charge against the accused appellant has been anointed convincingly without any ambiguity, resultantly he convicted him (the appellant) u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment vide impugned judgment and order which decision has generated the instant appeal questioning the said verdict.
10. On the above slated facts that we have heard Sri Pulukesh Mohanti, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jyoti Prakash Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent State and have perused the evidences and vetted through the trial court record.
11. Snipping the impugned judgment and castigating it vociferously learned appellant's counsel harangued that the 7 learned trial court committed manifest illegality and completely misdirected itself in concluding that the prosecution has established its case to the hilt and guilt of the appellant has been proved. All important, pivotal and significant evidences have either been eschewed or they were ignored while recording appellant's conviction. From motive till actual happening of the incident, nothing has been proved by the prosecution and the entire premise of the impugned judgment is based on pure conjecture and surmises without having any credible and reliable evidence to that effect. There is no eye witness to the actual infliction of injury on the deceased nor any witness has deposed so and hence to conclude that the appellant was the author of injuries to the deceased is a fallible conclusion. FIR is the outcome of manipulation and fabrication and is a figment of imagination to arraign the appellant as perpetrator of the crime. Conduct of the appellant, as deposed, does not inspire any confidence and is most surreal and unnatural. Medical report is incongruent vis-a-vis ocular narration about the incident and hence, in essence, prosecution has miserably failed to anoint appellant's guilt who should be acquitted of the framed charge and present appeal be allowed and appellant be set at liberty by setting aside his conviction and sentence. Various testimonies were cited and circumstances explained to articulate above submissions by appellant's learned counsel to which we shall refer while delineating and deliberating during course of our discussion hereinafter.
12. Submitting conversely, learned Additional Standing Counsel urged that during the course of the incident, which occurred in wee hours of a wintry morning, presence of only the appellant with the deceased is an indisputable fact and since appellant alone was present near the injured deceased with blood 8 stained weapon of assault, nobody else could have committed the offence. Proclamation by the appellant amidst happening of the incident do not require any further proof to establish the charge. Witnesses had no cogitative reason to depose falsely and recovery of crime weapons at the behest of the appellant cements his guilt and his appeal sans merits and be dismissed with affirmation of his conviction and sentence.
13. We have pondered over rival contentions and have searchingly vetted through the trial court record in that light. What is of significance which emerges is that the defence had opted out not to challenge some vital and significant aspects of the incident and facts in issue and hence prosecution story qua those aspects has an element of truth and authenticity. These aspects, which include date and place of the incident, presence of the appellant and the deceased at the scene of the murder and deceased having being met homicidal death because of physical assault on her, therefore are too well proved to be suspicious and doubted and consequently prosecution version cannot be discarded on these scores and we find these aspects to be genuinely proved. The solitary resultant question which, therefore, remains to be determined is as to whether it was the appellant who is the culprit or somebody else had done it as mere presence of the appellant and his utterances will not conclusively establish the charge, as we will discuss later on? Critically appreciating prosecution evidences keeping in mind appellant's castigation and State's rebuttal, it emerges that criticism by the appellant has got potential significance to caste a doubt on the prosecution story and hence we proceed to examine and record those circumstances and reasons.
14. Ab initio, concerning time of the incident, prosecution case remains suspicious and unconvincing and it seems, from the 9 evidences of eye witnesses that occurrence did not take place at 5 a.m. as was deposed during the trial and it probably occurred much earlier in complete darkness with no body as eye witness and later on time was changed to create a suspicious story against the appellant. This opinion is further strengthened from the facts firstly that albeit the incident occurred in the early hours of the wintry morning at 5 a.m. with both informant and his wife being eye witnesses along with many co-villagers being immediate post incident witnesses, yet the information to the police station was conveyed very belatedly at 9 a.m., after five hours and for this unsatisfactory delay, which, as suggested by the appellant was utilised to fabricate and concoct a story against the accused appellant, prosecution has not come forward with any explanation at all for such a lapse and has therefore created suspicion on the authenticity of it's version. Secondly that prosecution itself has brought into existence un-corroborative and doubtful evidences through testimonies of witnesses which negates its claim of informing the police on phone at 9 a.m. and what emerges is that the police was informed much earlier and it had already arrived in the village at 5 a.m. and by that time the incident had already occurred. Requirement of establishing the charge to the hilt was on the shoulder of the prosecution and hence it should have taken care and precaution to obliterate each and every evidences and circumstances of immense doubtful character liable to damage its story which it miserably failed to furnish. Why the eye witnesses embellished incident time from 4 a.m. as was slated in the FIR to 5 a.m. is a critical question having no answer to it and supposedly it seems, that it was done to bring twilight at the time of the incident so as to make it feasible for the witnesses to see the incident, otherwise no source of light of any other kind was spelt out by the witnesses during trial although in the FIR there is a reference of 10 moon light, and importantly, during investigation also, prosecution forgot to patch up this all significant aspect. It is worthwhile to note that PW 12 has stated about presence of electric pole and electric light in the glow of which he had seen the appellant and the deceased but his such a belated solitary disclosure is belied by all other witnesses especially by PW4 and the site plan prepared by the I.O. Claim of PW 12 regarding existence of electric light is ostensibly an afterthought fabrication and concoction liable to be discarded without any detailed discussion. Incident day being a wintry morning, absence of light can be heuristically inferred at 4/5 a.m. in the glow of which the assailant could have been identified, and therefore complicity of the appellant and his identification, especially when time of the incident is in grave doubt, becomes a very pivotal unsatisfactory feature of the prosecution case and we are in grave doubt about the prosecution version of the incident having occurred at 5 a.m. in the morning and the appellant proclaiming that he had murdered the deceased who was his wife at that moment. Thus the entire genesis of the prosecution story is shrouded in mystery.
15. As already mentioned our suspicion concerning genuineness of the prosecution story gets credence also from the contradictory and irreconcilable nature of evidences regarding information given to the police and registration of FIR/Ext.6. According to the Ist I.O./PW13 at 9 a.m. A.S.I. A.C.Pradhan received a phone call at the police station from Medha Shyam, President village Committee of Basudevpur, PW1, that one Bijay Naik of his village had killed his wife Shanti Naik. The said information was reduced into writing in the Station Diary by the said A.S.I. as entry no. 472 and then PW13 and other police personnel were deputed to enquire into the matter. However Medha Shayamghan/ PW1, President of Village Committee, when was 11 cross examined by the defence, unambiguously refuted such a claim by the police and stated categorically in para-5 of his depositions that- "I never made any telephone to the police about the incident. Though I know the deceased I cannot tell her name." There is also a third story regarding this important aspect spelt out by Iswar Naik/PW6, village watchman and agnatic brother of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief that "Seeing this I rushed to the police station and intimated the matter before the IIC.". This information ostensibly must have been conveyed to the police at around 6/7 a.m., at a distance of 10 KMs South but no record of such a claim was furnished before the trial Judge and more so how come then that PW13 had not made any reference to such an evidence and the police claim that they received information only on phone call by PW1 and that too at 9 a.m.? PW 1 completely demolished I.O.'s deposition and has stated in his cross examination, in para 4, that "The gramrakshi Iswar Naik told me that the police had sent for me. It was about 5.00 a.m. at that time. I immediately came to the spot and by then the police was already present there. I and the sarpanch together reached the spot. By the time of my arrival at the spot, about thirty persons have already gathered there. Around 5.15 a.m. I was examined by the police." What information was sent to the police and at what time so that they arrived at the incident spot at 5 a.m. is a mystery with no explanation from the prosecution is an additional analogous doubtful circumstance eroding truthfulness of the prosecution story. Arrival of the police at 5 a.m. has also been spelt out by Khali Naik/PW5 who deposed "About one year ago at 5.00 a.m. police came to our village and called me. I went to the village street and saw the dead body of the wife of the accused lying on the street in front of the house of Sukumari Naik." Village watchman Iswar Naik/ PW6 has mentioned time of incident as 4 a.m. and after the 12 incident, he had rushed to the police station and the police had arrived in the village at 5 a.m. Thus time of incident, the very inception of the prosecution case, information to the police and registration of FIR all are doubtful aspects and it cannot at all be conclusively held that the incident had occurred at 5 a.m. and the police came to know of it only at 9 a.m. through a phone call.
16. Over and above penning down of the FIR is also a disproved fact. According to the informant's statement in his examination-in-chief, "After the arrival of the police, I narrated the incident before them. The police reduced it into writing which was read over and explained to me (him)" and thereafter the informant had put his signature. The I.O. conversely evidenced that when he arrived at the spot, the FIR slated by Narsingh Sethi/PW2 was handed over to him. However, original transcript of the FIR does not mentioned writing of it by PW2 and this important circumstance creates grave suspicion regarding preparation of FIR and consequently possibility of it being outcome of deliberation and concoction cannot be ruled out. When PW2 entered into the witness box, he has not spelt out at all that FIR was scribed by him as claimed by PW13, the Ist I.O. Who then scribed the FIR is a begging question requiring an answer from the prosecution which is missing. This is indicative of the fact that all is not true and authentic and there is an element of fabrication and manipulation at the instance of the police in joint agreement with the informant and other witnesses. This is also apparent from the statement of PWs 1 & 6 in their cross examination as reproduced herein above. Thus in essence, change of time of the incident from 4 a.m. to 5 a.m., unconvincing nature of evidence concerning information conveyed to the police, time about registration of FIR, scribe of the FIR/Ext.6 by the police or by Narasingh Sethi/PW2, registration of the same at 9 a.m., all these doubtful evidences do not inspire and 13 instil any confidence in the prosecution version to the benefit of the accused appellant. Iswar Naikl/ PW6, village watchman (gramrakshi) has deposed in para-2 of his deposition that " I reported the matter in the police station verbally. The police party arrived at the village at about 5.00 A.M."
17. Another damaging feature of the prosecution story is that motive alleged by the prosecution is oxymoron and incongruent. According to FIR version and deposition of PW2, appellant had disclosed that he had killed his wife because he wanted to have a second wife. However according to PW1 vide his examination-in-chief when the police asked the appellant, he informed that he had annihilated her because he had suspected her character. During cross examination, PW1 contrarily deposed that eldest child of the accused is aged about 17 to 18 years and he "did not know if there was any ill feeling between the accused and his wife". Firstly disclosure of motive by the appellant to the police on asking is a part of his confessional statement hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and is in admissible and secondly is not a believable story. PW2 has also made similar statement in his cross examination when he deposed that "To my knowledge the accused and the deceased were pulling on well as husband and wife." Informant/PW3 and his wife Basini Naik/ PW4, Iswar Naik/ PW6, and Trinath Naik /PW7 have not evidenced about the motive at all. Since there is ipse dixit of only two witnesses which are incongruent and contradictory without having any additional evidence to support such a claim, it is very difficult to accept the prosecution case that appellant had any motive to do away with the deceased with whom he had spent at least 18 years of his life. Thus, motive as spelt out by the fact witnesses is oxymoron without having any credible material on that score. No worthwhile evidence was testified that the appellant had any extra marital 14 relationship with any lady nor it was proved that the deceased was a trollop so as to prompt the appellant to do away with her because of her licentious conduct.
18. Other unconvincing circumstances having deleterious effect on the prosecution version, as is apparent from the record, are of assaulting the wife outside the periphery of house in open at the mid hour of the night in winter. If the appellant desired to murder his wife, four corners of his house would have been the best place. Hence it is difficult to swallow that the crime has been committed by the appellant and this circumstance is also a disquieting feature of the incident which has not been explained satisfactorily. It is evidenced that both the appellant and the deceased were pulling on well and hence motive alleged by the prosecution is a disproved fact.
19. Yet another reason to discard the prosecution story which surfaces from the evidence of witnesses is the conduct of the appellant to remain present at the spot after committing murder. Nobody had witnessed the actual infliction of injury on the deceased. At what time she sustained that is unknown. All the witnesses testified that they had arrived at the scene of the incident after hearing shrieks of the deceased as Marigali-Marigali, spotted the appellant present with blood stained crowbar and Kati and the deceased lying in an injured condition. Why after fatally assaulting the deceased, the appellant will remain at the spot only to be spotted and caught hold of and convicted for murder is something which is totally unbelievable and unnatural. Adding to it is another unsatisfactory conduct of the appellant that he remained at the spot till the arrival of the police at 10 a.m. and was arrested from the spot itself only at 4 p.m. No attempt was made by him to escape or to conceal his identity. His proclamation that he had murdered his wife is also a bizarre conduct unless of 15 course we hold that he is a mentally unstable person, for which conclusion there is no evidence. For a common man of ordinary prudence to resort to such an apparently weird conduct required an explanation from the prosecution to satisfy inquisitive judicial analysis and since there is no evidence on that score, we are of the view that had appellant been the assailant, he would not have allowed such a meek surrender to the course of law especially when he had the motive to marry again or had doubted chastity of the deceased. Real life is different from heroic celluloid depiction and fiction of unreal life and we say no more.
20. Turning to the presence of the appellant, his proclamation, recovery of weapon and confessional statement are concerned, since we are of the opinion that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution occurred at 5 a.m. and since FIR is a manipulated document recorded ante time and the entire prosecution version is hazy and unsupportive of reliable evidence, no credence can be attached to such questions which become irrelevant and insignificant. Appellant resided with the deceased and hence his presence at the spot cannot be dubbed as incriminating unless other evidences of unimpeachable character disclosing his complicity in the crime is convincingly brought on the record and in this appeal, prosecution has miserably failed in that attempt. Confession and recovery has been denied by the appellant. It is quite likely that after hearing shrieks of the deceased like other witnesses, he also came out of his house and was arraigned as accused later on because real culprit could not be identified. It is because of this reason that he was arrested only in the evening at 4 p.m. and not prior to it. The alternative theory projected during critical scrutiny of evidences compels us to discard the prosecution case as unreliable and unconvincing.
1621. In our examination, it seems that the deceased was done to death much prior in time as alleged by the prosecution by unknown assailants and the appellant being her husband tried to console her and because of her innocence presence by the side of his wife, he was adjudged as culprit because of reasons best known to the prosecution witnesses and was arraigned as accused. Blood on the crowbar and the Kati without tallying it with the deceased is of no help to the prosecution as in villages people do get cut wounds while performing agragerian work. Moreover there is no evidence that the alleged recovered weapons belonged to the appellant and he has also denied having made any confessional statement. Since no part of actual confession has been proved, there is no evidence u/s 27 of the Evidence Act against the appellant.
22. Turning to the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial court had tried to justify each and every unsatisfactory feature of the prosecution evidence and its version on very flimsy reasoning. Instead of independently and dispassionately vetting through the entire evidence to separate the grain from the chaff and to unearth the truth, learned trial court convicted the appellant by ignoring above to referred unsatisfactory nature of prosecution evidence without analyzing and critically appreciating facts and circumstance.
Pedantic acceptance of prosecution story and eschewing evidences casting a doubt on its genuineness is no analysis. It is not every discrepancy, concoction, embellishment or contradiction which matters to discard prosecution story but when overall picture presented by the prosecution convincingly projects truncated prosecution story galore with discrepancies and fabrications and concoctions, then to discard the defence case by resorting to unacceptable reasons is negation of justice.
1723. In our ultimate opinion, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its charge of murder against the appellant and anoint his guilt convincingly. Appellant deserves conferment of benefit of doubt and we hereby confer on him the same. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellant through impugned judgment and order is set aside and he is acquitted to the charge of murder and is set at liberty. Appellant is in jail. He shall be set free forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other crime.
24. Let the trial court be informed.
..............................
Vinod Prasad, J
S.K.Sahoo, J I agree.
...............................
S.K.Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 21st July, 2015/AKD
18