(1.) IN this appeal the order of acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge. Puri in Sessions Trial No. 20/35 of 1986 has been assailed by the State.
(2.) THE brevity of the prosecution story, as narrated in the trial Court's judgment as follows : In the night of 28/29.10. 1 986 the respondents along with two others unknown culprits broke open the door of the dwelling house of the deceased Sudarshan Sahu and entered into the said house. The inmates of the house were then under the impression that the miscreants had trespassed into the house for commission of dacoity. However, when the household belongings were offered to them, they refused to receive the same and insisted the inmates to make way. They fired a gun from a point -blank range resulting in the death of the deceased Sudarsan Sahu. Incidentally, all the inmates at that time were female folk, namely, the widow, a married daughter and an unmarried daughter of the deceased. After committing the crime, the culprits fled away.
(3.) FROM the evidence of P.W.4 read with the post mortem report (Ext. 1), it has been firmly established that the deceased Sudarsan Sahu met a homicidal death. P.W.5, the unmarried daughter of the deceased, had lodged the report before P.W.I 1. On plain reading of the F.I.R. it is seen that neither P.W.5 nor any other inmates had claimed to have identified the respondents and their associates after seeing them. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. go to show that P.W.5 could identify the respondents from their voice. P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed for the first time in Court that they had seen the respondents in their house in the night of occurrence and they tried to present a vivid picture about the respondents' implication in the crime. It is strange to note that in the F.I.R. which was lodged none other one of the inmates, it has not been stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and 5 had seen the respondents arid their associates and that they could recognise the culprits. Although the F.I.R. version is that P.W.5 as well as the other inmates could recognise the respondents from their voice P.W.I 1 had not made by attempt to arrange a T.I. parade of voice recording out of which it would have been established that it was the respondents who committed the offence in the night of occurrence and from their voice P.Ws.l, 2 and 5 could recognise them to be the culprits.