The High Court · 2005
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Sudama Gouda State of Odisha -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.N. Sharma, Advocate Mr. J. Katikia Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY JUDGMENT 22.06.2023 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th February 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.C. No.17 of 2003/S.C. No.125 of 2003-GDC convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three months. The trial court has also convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 17:08:48 JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Page 1 of 6 of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months in respect of the said offence. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The Appellant had been charged for committing murder of one Bhikari ouda (hereafter, ‘the deceased’). The case of the prosecution hinged largely upon the evidence of the Informant- Khalia Gouda (P.W.1). According to the prosecution, P.W.1 along with his son Nilanchal and the deceased, who was 11 years old, went at 9 am on the morning of 9th October 2002 to Cattle Gotho (Kuhara) near a hill. When they reached the Kuhara near Bhuyani Mundia for collection of milk, P.W.1 found that Bijaya Gouda (P.W.7) and Sambari Gouda were there collecting milk in their respective Kuharas. While P.W.1 collecting the milk, the present Appellant-accused reached there and asked him to give a little quantity of milk which P.W.1 acceded to. 3. After the milking was over, P.W.1 told the deceased to remain at the Kuhara and look after the buffaloes and cows while he went back to his house to take lunch. While returning to his house, P.W.1 asked the present Appellant, Sudam to accompany him, but the Appellant declined saying that he would come later. While P.W.1 along with P.W.7 and Sambari Gouda came to their respective houses, the Appellant and the deceased remained in the Kuhara. After lunch, when P.W.1, P.W.7 and Sambari Gouda returned to their respective Kuharas, they could not find the deceased or the present Appellant. When P.W.1 returned to the village and asked the present Appellant regarding the whereabouts of the deceased, the Appellant informed him that he had not seen Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 17:08:48 JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Page 2 of 6 the deceased. On the day following the occurrence i.e., 10th October 2002 at 8 am, the villagers searched for the deceased, but in vain. One of the relatives of P.W.1 disclosed that one man of village Choppra informed her that while he had been to Janighai to fetch water, he had noticed the Appellant inside the water. Thereafter, the villagers entered into the pond and searched for the deceased and recovered his dead body. When the dead body of the deceased was brought out, they could notice a cut mark on the neck and also found a big stone tied on the waist of the deceased by means of a napkin. P.W.1 then verbally reported the matter to the ASI, Jagannath Prasad Outpost at village Chikilli (P.W.10). 4. P.W.1 in the FIR alleged that the Appellant had, one and half months before the occurrence, stayed for about 8 days, in the house of P.W.1. About two days prior to the occurrence, the Appellant allegedly misbehaved the mother of P.W.1 for which P.W.1 asked the Appellant to leave the house. The Appellant supposed to have threatened P.W.1. The case of the prosecution as spoken by P.W.1 is that getting opportunity of the deceased being alone with him, the Appellant had killed the deceased by cutting his throat and then tied a stone on the waist of the deceased, and concealed the dead body inside the Janighai till was finally traced out. 5. It was argued both before the trial court as well as this Court that P.W.6 having turned hostile, his evidence ought not to have been relied upon at all. The trial court found certain elements in the deposition of P.W.6 which in fact could have been relied upon by the prosecution since it squarely implicated the present Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 17:08:48 JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Page 3 of 6 Appellant. Therefore, notwithstanding that P.W.6 turned hostile, the trial court did not commit any error in holding that only for that reason, the entire evidence of P.W. 6 ought not to be discarded. 6. The trial court has in its judgment analyzed in detail the motive for commission of the crime which was essentially the grudge nurtured by the Appellant for being denied entry to the house of P.W.1, for misbehaving with the mother of P.W.1. Therefore, the motive for the crime stood established. As regards the deceased being last seen in the company of the Appellant, the evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear beyond doubt that when he and others proceeded for lunch, the Appellant chose to stay back at the worksite with deceased. Therefore, this did establish an important link in the chain of circumstances which implicated the Appellant. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that although the cut injuries on the deceased are said to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon, there was no independent witness to the recovery of the said weapon at the instance of the Appellant. 8. While there was no independent witness to such recovery, the rest of the evidence by itself would not be rendered useless only because there was no independent witness to the seizure of the weapon which was used to kill the deceased. The trial court has rightly rejected the plea that the evidence regarding seizure of the knife ought to have been rejected. Moreover, there were bloodstains found on the knife. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 17:08:48 JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Page 4 of 6 9. Here again, the trial court is right in its analysis that with the dead body having been kept hidden in the Janighai, it is unlikely that the Appellant could have allowed the bloodstain to remain on knife. In all probability he washed the knife before handing it over to the Police. 10. Even if one were to keep aside the evidence of P.W.6 on the ground that he was a hostile witness, the other links in the chain of circumstances appear to have been fully established by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances when taking together do point unerringly to the guilt of the Appellant. 11. The Court is satisfied that the trial court has committed no error in convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentencing him as already stated above. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant lastly seeks to contend that the Appellant had been in custody more than 20 years and that the said fact should be taken note of by the Court. 13. In the present appeal, the Court is concerned with the correctness of the judgment of the trial court regarding the conviction of the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC and the corresponding sentence awarded for that purpose. As regards the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the only two alternatives in the form of punishment for the said offence is either imprisonment for life or the capital sentence. Notwithstanding that the Appellant may have served more than 20 years in custody, that is not persuaded the Court to set aside the conviction or modify the sentence. This shall, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 17:08:48 JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Page 5 of 6 however, not come on the way of the Appellant seeking remission, if so permissible, in accordance with law. 14. As far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice Judge (G. Satapathy) S.K. Guin/PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 17:08:48 JCRLA No.57 of 2005 Page 6 of 6