SAMARU MIRI Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 08-02-2008 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 51/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Samaru Miri has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:

(2.) Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of guilt recorded on the basis of evidence of Purnima (PW-4) and Dinesh Miri (PW-5) is not reliable. He further argued that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of the incident. Purnima (PW-4) and Dinesh Miri (PW-5) are child witnesses and they did not disclose the incident to anybody and they are tutored witnesses. Therefore, their evidence is not cogent and reliable and cannot be the basis for conviction. Had Purnima (PW-4) and Dinesh Miri (PW-5) witnessed the incident, they would have disclosed the name of the assailant to Sadanand and other villagers. He further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove extrajudicial confession. Ahgadram (PW-1) denied lodging of the report and Angadram (PW-1), Kanhaiya (PW-2), Hemram (PW-3), Ramkalesh (PW-6) and Fakirchand Sahu (PW-7) did not support the prosecution case. He further argued that it is well settled law that a strong suspicion is not a substitute for a proof. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

(3.) Shri Adil Minhaj, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.