The Orissa High Court upheld the order of the trial court which convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and observed that it was a settled position that in the case of related or interested witnesses, the court must accept their evidence with some caution and the court should look for independent corroboration of such evidence and the testimonies in the present case were independently corroborated by the medical evidence and other testimonies.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, accused of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court and the same is appealed by the appellant in the present appeal.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that most of the eye-witnesses were related and interested witnesses and therefore, their testimony had to be accepted with great caution. It was further argued that it was unlikely for the appellant to attack the deceased with an iron rod when he already possessed a sword as stated by the prosecution witness.
Observations of the Court:
It was further observed that in a case based on direct evidence, the prosecution is not required to prove the motive for the crime, although that too was proved in the present case.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order and canceled the bail bonds of the appellant.
Case Title: Krupa @ Krupasindhu Sai vs. State of Odhisa
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Satapathy
Case No.: JCRLA No.137 of 2005
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. S.P Sahoo
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. G.N Rout
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
