MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. No. 1/2 of 1990 directing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") has been assailed in this appeal.

(2.) The brevity of the prosecution story as unfurled during the course of trial is as follows:

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined sixteen witnesses. It had however, mainly relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 to 3. who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence and also post -occurrence witnesses. P.W. 1 Chandamani Singh apart from being the informant had also claimed -during investigation to have seen the occurrence. But, unfortunately, she did not stick to her statement and was, therefore, declared hostile and the prosecution was permitted to confront her with the previous statement. P.Ws 2 and 3 were the immediate neighbours of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 had claimed to arrived at the spot on hearing the outcry raised by P.W. 1 similarly. P.W. 3 arrived at the spot followed by his wife (P.W.2).