The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 133 of 2007 Hantala Sitanna …. Appellant State of Orissa …. Respondent -versus- Advocates appeared in the cases: For Appellant For Respondent : : CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Legal Reasoning
Ms. D.R. Nanda, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Tripathy Additional Standing Counsel JUDGMENT 22.06.2023 Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th December, 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.27 of 2006 convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned that by an order dated 15th March, 2010 the Appellant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute regarding landed properties that arose between the family of the Appellant and of the deceased Hantala Mallu, son of Hantala Ramanna. The CRLA No.133 of 2007 Page 1 of 5 provocation for the crime was that on 5th October, 2005 at around 5 pm, the deceased was seen assaulting the Appellant’s father, Hantala Lachanna, in connection with the said dispute regarding the landed properties. The Appellant upon witnessing the said assault rushed to the place with a thenga and asked the deceased why he was assaulting the Appellant’s father. He then proceeded to assault the deceased with the thenga on several parts of the body including the head and chest. The assault was so brutal that the deceased died an instantaneous death on the spot itself. 4. The case of the prosecution was that the occurrence was witnessed by Hantala Simadri, A. Lenka, Patanna Khora, Paramma and others. The informant, Paranji Gangulu (PW-1) is stated to have enquired from the Appellant upon which he confessed to having killed the deceased by thenga. Incidentally, the deceased happened to be the elder father of the Appellant. 5. In the trial, most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW-7, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 6th October, 2005. PW-7 found the following injuries on the dead body: “(i) Multiple abrasion over chest, epigastrium and near left clavicle. (ii) Tearing of the left ear lobules extending 2 cm from the margin. (iii) Laceration over left side chin of 2 cm X 1 cm X 4 ½ cm size. (iv) Laceration over cheek below left eye of size 1 cm X ½ cm X 1/2 cm. CRLA No.133 of 2007 Page 2 of 5 (v) Laceration of 5 cm X 2 cm X 1/2 cm over right parietal scalp. (vi) Fracture of right parietal bone was noticed while examining the external injury and the brain matters were exposed. (vii) All the membrances of the parietal region of right side were teared. (viii) The parietal region of the brain- there was gross injury to the substance of the brain matter.” 6. PW-7 further found on dissection that there was a fracture of six ribs on both sides of the chest. Pleura of the right mode was ruptured and the right lung was also ruptured. The pericardium and the heart were also ruptured as was the liver. These injuries were very serious and sufficient in the ordinary course to cause an instantaneous death. Consequently, the evidence of PW-7 more than adequately proved that the death was homicidal. 7. Next, it was seen that the Constable (PW-8) who was the scribe of the FIR was able to testify to the fact that PW-1 came to lodge the FIR at the beat house. The Station Diary entry was also proved by him. The third piece of evidence was that the Appellant surrendered before the Police along with the weapon of offence. The fact of surrender by the Appellant stood proved by the evidence of the Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-11), who was in- charge of the Sunki beat house where the FIR was lodged. Although PW-10 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to discredit his testimony regarding PW-1 having come there to lodge the FIR and the Appellant having surrendered along with the weapon of offence. There no suggestion was put to CRLA No.133 of 2007 Page 3 of 5 either PW-10 or to the other officer in charge of Pottangi Police Station (PW-11) that the Appellant had been arrested somewhere else and then brought to the police station. 8. The fourth piece of evidence which remained uncontroverted was that the weapon of offence, i.e., the thenga surrendered by the Appellant was stained with human blood. This was proved by the chemical examination report. In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, the Appellant could not offer any reasonable explanation for being found possessing a weapon like the thenga which stained with human blood. 9. According to the trial Court, the above circumstances were sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances that unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused. 10. A weak argument was placed before the trial Court regarding the offence being one committed under grave and sudden provocation so as to attract the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Giving the nature of the injuries, the trial Court declined to accept the said plea. 11. This Court has heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and has examined the entire record. While it is true that the eye-witnesses projected by the prosecution failed to support its case, the evidence regarding lodging of the FIR, the surrender by the Appellant along with the weapon of offence stained with human blood, and the proof of the homicidal death of the deceased as a result of as many as eight grievous injuries including fracture of as many as six ribs and complete fracture of CRLA No.133 of 2007 Page 4 of 5 essential organs like the heart, the pericardium, the liver proved indisputably that it was a homicidal death. The failure by the Appellant to offer any reasonable explanation for having surrendered before the police along with the weapon of offence which was stained with human blood completed the chain of circumstances. The fact that the Appellant was reacting to the assault on his own father by the deceased provided the motive for the alleged crime. 12. The Court is satisfied that the trial Court has committed no error in concluding that it was the Appellant and the Appellant alone who was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The sentence awarded also does not calls for interference. 13. There is no merit in the present appeal and it is dismissed as such. The bail bonds of the Appellant are hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith and in any event not later than 10th July, 2023, failing which the IIC of the concerned police station will take immediate steps to take him into the custody forthwith for serving out the remainder of the sentence. (S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (G. Satapathy) Judge S. Behera/ Jr. Steno. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jun-2023 16:43:41 CRLA No.133 of 2007 Page 5 of 5