STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GANDU PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and on a perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge holding the respondents, who had figured as the accused persons, not guilty of the charges under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the TCode) for having committed the murder of Pramila (to be described hereinafter as the deceased) by intentionally causing her death on March 20, 1976 and for having caused disappearance of the evidence of commission of murder by throwing her dead body into a well we find no ground for interference in an appeal against acquittal for the brief reasons to follow.

(2.) It had been established that the deceased had died a homicidal death. The case depended solely on the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 4 and 5 who had claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and had spoken about the respondent Gandu pressing a piece of fire-wood over the neck of the deceased and thereafter the respondents carrying away the deceased inside their house. P.W. 2, the first informant, had no direct knowledge about the occurrence. He had claimed to have, heard about the occurrence from P.W. 5 and Simanchal Panda in his petition of complaint. Simanchal Panda bad not figured as a witness for the prosecution which had relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 as witnesses to the occurrence. According to the learned trial Judge, P.W. 4 is a got-up witness and his name did not find a place in the petition of complaint and in addition, he had not been examined in the course of investigation by P.W. 9. The trial court has rightly concluded that if P. Ws. 4 and 5 had informed P.W. 2 about the occurrence, that fact would certainly have found a place in the first information report and would not be conspicuous by its absence therein. Besides P.Ws. 4 and 5 had not disclosed the occurrence to anyone in the village or to the police authorities, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge. Such evidence cannot be accepted and made the foundation of an order of conviction.

(3.) On a consideration of their evidence and for the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge which need not be reiterated, a reasonable view has been taken that their evidence was not worthy of credence. There was no other evidence to bring home any of the charges to the respondents. The order of acquittal cannot successfully be assailed.