MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.102 of 2007 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment dated 24.06.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.193 of 2004. Nimain Hembrum …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent For Appellant : Ms. S. Sahoo, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.N. Das, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 10.04.2024 : Date of judgment :20.08.2024 V. Narasingh, J. The Appellant, has called in question the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and the order of sentence of life imprisonment dated 24.06.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.193 of 2004 arising out of G.R. Case No.310 of 2004 corresponding to Ghasipura P.S. Case No.102 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Anandapur. CRLA No.102 of 2007 Page 1 of 6 2. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 01.08.2004, while the informant-P.W.1 (Arjun Patra), who was working as Gram Rakhi, was sitting on his verandah, the Appellant-accused appeared before him along with ‘Bala’, arrow and bow and severed head of the deceased- Sunamani Hembrum in a bag and informed him that he had killed the deceased as she was practicing witchcraft. 3. Thereafter, the Informant-P.W.1 (Arjun Patra) called the villagers and also informed the police about the case after which the
Legal Reasoning
police registered the FIR as Ghasipura P.S. Case No.102 of 2004 under Section 302 of IPC and the I.O. (P.W.8) took up investigation and in due course after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-Appellant and on commitment, the Appellant-accused was put to trial. 4. The prosecution in order to fortify its case examined 8 witnesses. P.W.1 P.W.2 P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5 P.W.6 P.W.7 P.W.8 Arjun Patra (Gram Rakhi) - Informant Bakuli Patra Panchanana Patra Sania Patra Manoranjan Patra Bharat Chandra Patra Charan Marandi Santosh Kumar Dash- The I.O. CRLA No.102 of 2007 Page 2 of 6 5. Besides above, the Prosecution also proved several documents which were admitted into evidence and marked as Exts.1-16. 5A. No evidence was led by the defence and defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Sahoo argued with vehemence that the case at hand is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence and there being gaping holes in the chain of circumstance, the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court is perverse for which the Petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.N. Das, ASC, on the other hand, submitted that evaluating the evidence on record, learned Trial Court on a cogent analysis thereof, has arrived at the finding of guilt which does not in any way call for interference and seeks dismissal of the appeal. 8. Learned Trial Court arrived at the finding of the guilt of the accused-appellant primarily relying on the evidence of P.W.1, the Gram Rakhi, P.W.3- the witness to the seizure of Bow and Bala from the possession of the accused coupled with Exhibits 2, seizure CRLA No.102 of 2007 Page 3 of 6 list in respect of wearing apparels of accused, and Ext.3 relating to the seizure of alleged weapon of offence Bow and Bala, the Chemical Examination and Serologist report at Exhibits 15 and 16 respectively in which it has been stated that human blood was found from the ‘Bala’ the weapon of offence and also the wearing apparels of the accused. 9. The evidence of P.W.1(Gram Rakhi) deposed that on the date of occurrence when he was sitting on his verandah, the accused arrived there with the severed head of Sunamani, who is his elder mother along with ‘Bala’ and three arrows. It is his evidence that the accused-appellant told him that as she was practicing witch-craft which resulted in the death of his parents, he killed her. The investigation was in fact put into motion on the basis of the information lodged by the P.W.1, who was the Gramarakshi of village. 10. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the said witnesses to discredit him. 11. The prosecution has also relied on post mortem report, proved through the I.O-P.W.8 to establish the homicidal nature of CRLA No.102 of 2007 Page 4 of 6 the death of Sunamani Bag so also the factum of death being caused due to severance of head. 12. The evidence of P.W.2 is a witness to the seizure of Lungi of the accused and P.W.3, a witness for the seizure of three arrows, one bow and Bala from the possession of the accused. 13. Keeping in view the evidence on record and more particularly that of P.W.1 and other circumstances regarding seizure, this Court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court in holding the appellant guilty of the death of Sunamani Hembrum. 14. Learned counsel for the defence strenuously urged that there is no explanation as to why the deceased chose P.W.1 to make the confession as is the case of the prosecution. 15. The learned trial Court has dealt with the same in a cogent manner in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment stating, “Be that as it may, why the accused placed confidence in P.W.1 is only known to him and he has not offered any explanation” and to fortify his reasoning, the learned Trial Court has relied in the case of Sanajay @ Kaka Vrs. The State(N.C.C.T of Delhi) reported in 2001(1) Crimes 268(SC). CRLA No.102 of 2007 Page 5 of 6 16. This Court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for alteration of the conviction from Section 302 of IPC to 304-I of IPC taking into account the manner in which the offence has been committed, wherein a lady was done to death in a most brutal manner, this Court is not persuaded to hold that no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out and also does not find any reason to interfere with the sentence of life imprisonment. 17. In the light of the above discussions the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. 18. Since the Appellant was released on bail, he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court which of course would stand governed by the order of premature release if so passed in the meantime. (V. Narasingh) Judge D. Dash, J : I agree. (D. Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 20th August, 2024/Soumya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Sep-2024 18:11:09 CRLA No.102 of 2007 Page 6 of 6