MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.23 of 2010 In the matter of an Appeal under section-383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th April 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur Camp at Umerkote in C.T. No.66 of 2008. Baladev Raut ….. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Orissa ….. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ========================================================= For Appellant - Mr. H.K. Mallick Advocate as Amicus Curiae For Respondent - Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Addl. Standing Counsel. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING :11.07.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20.08.2024 D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th April 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur Camp at Umerkote in C.T. No.66 of 2008 arising out of G.R. Case No.158 of 2008 corresponding to Umerkote P.S. Case No.35 of 2008 JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 1 of 10 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (J.M.F.C.), Umerkote. 2. The Appellant (accused) therein has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay of fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 3. Prosecution Case is that on 13th March 2008, it was around mid night, when Dharmu Harijan(deceased) and Dulava Bhatra (P.w.12) were guarding the forest as per the decision of the Village Committee, the accused came there and started cutting green trees. Seeing this, Dharmu (deceased) and Dulava (P.W.12) objected and asked him to refrain from cutting said trees. It is stated that accused then being enraged, suddenly dealt blows by means of axe on the head of Dharmu causing bleeding injuries on his person. Dulava (P.W.12) thus, passed on the information to the brothers of Dharmu, who with such injuries, when was being shifted to the Hospital died on the way. The brother of Dharmu namely, Lokanath Harijan (P.W.8), then informed the matter in writing under Ext.8, getting its scribed by one Surjya Prakash Pattanaik (P.W.7). Receiving the same, the IIC, Umerkote Police Station (P.W.14), treated the same as F.I.R. and registering the case, took up JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 2 of 10 investigation. In course of investigation, he (P.w.14) examined the Informant (P.W.8) and other witnesses. He visited the spot, prepared spot map, Ext.11. In the evening around 5 pm, he held inquest over the dead body of Dharmu in presence of witnesses and prepared report, Ext.2. The dead body was then sent for postmortem examination and the wearing apparels of the deceased-Dharmu being seized seizure list was prepared. He (P.W.14) then arrested the accused-Baladev Rauta on the same day and recorded his confessional statement (Ext.6) in presence of witnesses. The I.O. (P.W.14) seized the weapon of offence i.e. one iron axe having a wooden handle and seized wearing apparels of the accused-Baladev and sent the accused for medical examination. He (P.W.14) then forwarded the accused in custody to the Court. He (P.W.14) on his transfer made over the charge of investigation to his successor in office (P.W.13) who on completion of investigation submitted the Final Form placing the accused, to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section-302 of the IPC. 4. Learned J.M.F.C., Umerkote having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the above noted offence and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing charge against the accused for the said offence. JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 3 of 10 5. The plea of accused is that of complete denial and false implication. It is his further defence that he had no involvement in the death of the deceased. 6. In the Trial, the prosecution examined in total 14 (fourteen) witnesses. Out of whom, as already stated P.W.8 is the Informant, who had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.8) being scribed through P.W.7. P.W.6 is another brother of the deceased and P.W.8. The prosecution has projected P.W.12 as the eyewitness and examined as P.W.5 before whom said P.W.12 had disclosed the incident. The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.9 whereas P.W.13 and P.W.14 are the are the Investigating Officers. Prosecution besides leading evidence, through by examination of above witnesses, has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts. 1 to 14. Out of those, the important are F.I.R. (Ext.8), inquest report (Exjgt.2), postmortem report (Ext.9), spot map (Ext.11), chemical examiner’s report (Ext.14), the confessional statement of the accused (Ext.6) and the corresponding seizure lists as Ext.3, Ext.4, Ext.5 and Ext.7. 7. The defence plea is that of complete denial and false implication. However, no evidence has been tendered by the accused in support of the plea. JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 4 of 10 8. The Trial Court upon examination of evidence mainly, the evidence of P.W.12, the eyewitness projected by the prosecution and the evidence as to the recovery of the weapon (axe) at the instance of the accused while in police custody pursuant to his statement and consequentially seizure as held the prosecution to have established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the solitary testimony of P.W.12 in fastening the guilt upon the accused. He further submitted that there arises the discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony as regards the seat of injuries upon the deceased and therefore, the evidence of P.W.12 ought not to have been accepted without any corroboration on material particulars. He also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution through P.W.12 and other witnesses as to the recovery of the weapon (axe) at the instance of the accused while in police custody pursuant to his statement cannot be believed as those do not contain all the detail particulars. In view of all these above, he urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal cannot be sustained. 10. Learned Counsel for the State (Respondent) while supporting the finding of guilt against the accused as has been returned by the JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 5 of 10 Trial Court invited our attention to the deposition of P.W.12. According to him, on a close reading of the evidence of P.W.12, it would reveal that the same is wholly reliable and trustworthy and therefore, even without any corroboration when the medical evidence stands to support the version of P.W.12, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. He also reminded us of the settled position of law that conviction can well be based on solitary testimony of witnesses provided the Court arrives at a conclusion that such testimony is free from any doubt and is trustworthy and reliable which is the case according to him in case of the evidence of P.W.12. He submitted that the Trial Court examining the evidence of P.W.12 from all possible angles has found no such discrepancy therein nor the same to have been bristled with any contradiction. He, therefore, contended that the ultimate finding that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt cannot be found fault with. 11. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction impugned in this Appeal. We have also travelled through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 14. We too have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Exts. 1 to 14. 12. The nature of death of Dharmu has been proved to be homicidal firstly through evidence of P.W.10, who has conducted JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 6 of 10 autopsy over the dead body. He has stated to have noticed two chopped wounds, one over the left frontal part of the scalp and other one, over the occipital region of the scalp, besides one bruise over the left side of the face. His evidence is that on dissection, he had noticed intra cerebral haemorrhage and brain materials to have been lacerated. It has been said by him that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account to the injuries on vital organ i.e. brain. His evidence is very specific that said injuries on the brain was on account of two bows at the minimum. We find that the defence has not challenged the evidence of P.W.6 on the above score. The I.O. (P.W.14) who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of witnesses has also noted in his report Exjt.2. It is also the evidence of other witnesses including P.W.12 that they had seen the deceased with such injuries. All these overwhelming evidence, remaining unimpeached, we find no difficulty in concluding that Dharmu met a homicidal death. 13. Now coming to address the rival submission and judge the sustainability of the finding of the Trial Court in fastening the guilt upon the accused, we find that the prosecution to have mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.12, who according to them is the witness who had seen the occurrence as he was then with the deceased guarding the jungle. The incident admittedly has taken place inside the jungle and that is said to be the spot. Page 7 of 10 JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 14. It is the settled position of law that there is no bar for acceptance of the solitary testimony of a witness in fastening the guilts upon the offender provided the Court finds the evidence to be wholly reliable and trustworthy being free from any blemish. In that case, the said evidence even can be acted upon without any corroboration. 15. In the touchstone of the aforesaid, when we approach the evidence of P.W.12, we find him to have stated that at the relevant time, he was inside the jungle with the deceased and it was during mid night, the accused was found cutting green trees. His evidence is that since they were guarding the jungle as per the decision of the Village Committee, he with Dharmu objected the act of the accused in cutting the trees. His further evidence is that accused being enraged dealt three blows on the head of deceased by means of that tangia (axe) and when accused attempted to assault him (P.W.12), he ran away from the place and informed the matter to Phulageva Bhatra (P.W.5); whereafter the matter was informed to the family members of the deceased and then villagers went to the spot and saw Dharmu lying dead. His evidence as to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased by means of Tangia, receives credence from his version when he has stated that the distance between the place where he was standing on the place and the place assault took place by saying it to be only 50 cubits. He has also stated that accused coming from front gave blows upon the deceased. Cross- Page 8 of 10 JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 examination being made, we find absolutely no material to have been elicited either to doubt, his evidence as to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased or as regards his presence at the spot at the relevant time. His conduct appears to be very natural, when he says that when accused attempted to assault him, he ran away from the spot and immediately, informed the incident to P.W.5 and family members of the deceased. The evidence is free from any contradiction whatsoever. P.W. 5 has stated that P.W.12 had gone to him and narrated the incident and he then immediately went to the house of deceased and told his brother about the incident and thereafter the brothers of the deceased had gone to spot which is also the version of P.W.12. So, there remains the evidence of P.W.5 as regards immediate disclosure of the incident before him. Thus, the evidence of P.W.12 according to us is wholly reliable and trustworthy. Thus the same as per our opinion even without taking the aid of the evidence as to the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused can be safely relied upon to fasten the guilt upon the accused in holding that he has committed the murder of Dharmu The evidence as discussed above therefore, in our view establish the charge under section-302 of the IPC as against this accused in intentionally causing the death of the deceased by inflicting cut injuries on the deceased-Dharmu by tangia (axe) beyond reasonable doubt. JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 9 of 10 16.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th April 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur Camp at Umerkote in C.T. No.66 of 2008, are hereby confirmed. The accused, namely, Baladev Raut, being on bail, is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to serve out the sentence. V. Narasingh, J. I Agree. (D. Dash), Judge. (V. Narasingh), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Aug-2024 18:46:43 JCRLA No.23 OF 2010 Page 10 of 10