STATE OF ORISSA Vs. UDAYA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the State calls in question the order of acquittal of all the respondents of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and respondent Prasanna alias Santosh Kumar Panda of the offence under Section 302/109 IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in S.T. Case No. 122 -D of 1988.

(2.) THE prosecution story, as described in course of the trial, is as follows :

(3.) THE prosecution examined nineteen witnesses in all. The statement of P.W. 1 in court is vital for appreciating the case of the prosecution in so far as the complicity of the respondents is concerned. P.Ws. 2, 5, 6, 9 and 15 are the employees of the Cashew Development Corporation. P.W. 3 was the lessee of the cashew field in question in the year 1987. P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure. P.Ws, 17 and 18 are the investigating officers. P.W. 19 is the doctor who conducted post -mortem examination over the dead body of Bidyut. In course of trial, P.Ws. 4, 6, 9 and 10 turned hostile and P.W. 11 did not support any aspect of the prosecution case. Consequently, their evidence is of no avail to the prosecution.