The High Court · 2012
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NO.440 OF 2012 In the matter of an Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th January 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.28 of 2011. Lalu Jani State of Odisha ---- -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): ================================================ For Appellant - Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Date of Hearing :30.11.2023 : Date of Judgment: 19.12.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th January, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.28 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.461 of 2010 corresponding to B.Singhpur P.S. Case No.39 of 2010 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in CRLA No.440 of 2012 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} short, ‘IPC’) and each has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution Case: - On 20.09.2010 during the emersion of the idol of Lord Ganesh at village Bodigaon, accused namely, Lalu Jani having been intoxicated created disturbance. So, Lombodar and his brother tied him in their house. However, sometime thereafter, the accused somehow managed to get himself released and coming to the village road, when it was around 6 pm stabbed on the belly of the Lambodar (deceased) causing bleeding injuries. Lambodar in that injured condition was taken to Kumuli Primary Health Centre and then while being shifted to Boriguma Community Health Centre, he died on the way. The father of the Lambodar namely, Trinath lodged a written report to the above effect on 20.09.2010 around 9 pm with the Inspector-In-Charge, B.Singhpur Police Station. On receiving the written report, the I.IC.(P.W.12) treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation. 3. During investigation, the IIC (P.W.12) examined the Informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses, visited the CHC, Boriguma where dead body of the deceased was lying and deputed police personnel to guard the dead body. The IIC (P.W.12) conducted raid in the village to apprehend the accused. On 21.09.2010 the IIC conducted inquest over CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 3 }} the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2). He then sent the dead body for postmortem examination, visited spot at village Bodigaon and prepared spot map (Ext.12), seized some blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot and prepared the seizure list in presence of the witnesses and then arrested the accused. The accused while in police custody stated to have concealed the weapon in the roof of his house. The IIC (P.W.12) recorded the statement of the accused vide Ext.4 and the accused led the IIC (P.W.12) and the witnesses to his house and in presence of the witnesses gave recovery of the weapon i.e. knife from the roof of his house. He then seized that knife stained with blood in presence of witnesses under the seizure list Ext.5, seized the wearing apparels of the accused stained with blood and prepared the seizure list, Ext.7, whereafter the wearing apparels of the deceased were seized under the seizure list as Ext.8. On 22.09.2010, the IIC (P.W.12) sent the accused to PHC Kumuli for examination and collection of nail clippings which were seized vide seizure list Ext.6/2. On 14.12.2010, the I.O. (P.W.12) sent the seized incriminating materials to RFSL, Berhampur through the Court. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC. CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 4 }} 4. Receiving the Final Form as above, the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur took cognizance of the said offences and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. That is how the trial commenced by framing charge against this accused for the above offence. 5. In the trial, the prosecution in total has examined 12 witnesses, out of whom said P.W.1 is the informant who happens to be the father of the deceased, P.Ws.2 to 5 are the co-villagers. P.W.6 is the witness to the inquest report, P.W.7 is witness to the statement of accused and the recovery of the weapon i.e. knife, P.W.8 is the Medical officer attached to Kumuli PHC who examined the accused, Lalu Jani and collected his nail clippings, sealed the same and submitted the report as Ext.6, P.W.9 is the scribe of the F.I.R. P.W.10 is the Police Constable attached to B.Singpur Police Station and witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the accused, P.W.11 is the Doctor at B.Singhpur PHC who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased; whereas the Investigating Officer has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.12. 6. The prosecution besides leading evidence by examining the above witnesses has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to 15, out of which the FIR is Ext.1 and the inquest report is Ext.2, spot map Ext.12; whereas the CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 5 }} postmortem report is Ext.9. The said statement of accused Lalu before the police has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.4 and the report of the chemical examiner is Ext.15. 7. The accused person has tendered any evidence in support of his plea of denial and false implication by examining two witnesses (D.Ws.1 and 2). 8. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of P.W.16, the Doctor who had held postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and had found the stab injury of size 1cm x 10cm depth at the chest just below the left nipple as well as his report Ext.9 together with the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) who had held inquest over the dead body and his report Ext.2 and other witnesses who had seen the deceased lying dead with stab injury has arrived at a conclusion that Lambodar met a homicidal death. In fact, this aspect of the case was not under the challenge before the Trial Court and that is also the situation before us. The Evidence of P.W.11, who is the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is that he had found the stab injury of size 1cm x 10cm depth at the chest just below the left nipple. On dissection the Doctor found penetrating injury to the left pleura. The injury was ante-mortem in nature and is said by him to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 6 }} The Doctor further opined that the cause of death was due to massive bleeding leading to hypovolemic shock and cardiac arrest. He has further opined that the injury was homicidal in nature. His report has been proved as Ext.9. The doctor further stated with the knife (M.O.- I) which he had examined, the injury inflicted on the body of the deceased could be caused. The inquest report prepared by P.W.12 also reveals said injury on the person of the deceased and that has also been stated by other witness who had seen the dead body. In view of all these, we are wholly in agreement of the finding of the Trial Court that Lambodar met homicidal death. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) without disputing the nature of death of Lambodar to be homicidal. Confined his submission on the question of alteration of conviction to one under section-304-I of the IPC from section-302 of the IPC as has been fixed by the Trial Court. He submitted that even accepting the prosecution evidence with regard to the role played by the accused and the acts done, the Trial Court ought not to have held the accused guilty for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC. According to him, the evidence on record would reveal that there was no prior planning behind the incident, the accused and the deceased had quarreled and fought with each other at the time when the procession CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 7 }} for immersion of the idol of Lord Ganesha was going on and then it is not said that the accused was not holding any weapon, and then this incident happened all of a sudden. In view of all these above, further keeping in mind that the parties hail from rural background, mostly having high temper showing abnormal and unexpected behavior in silly matters; according to him, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for commission of the offence under section-302 of the IPC. In this connection, he has invited our attention to the depositions for all those witnesses and also the F.I.R., Ext.7. He thus urged for appropriate modification of the conviction and reduction of the sentence. 10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted all in favour of the finding of the Trial Court holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section-302 of the IPC. He contended that this accused having stabbed the deceased by means of knife, the offence committed would stand categorized under section-302 of the IPC. 11. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Trial Court and we have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 12 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 15. CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 8 }} 12. As per the prosecution case, the accused was then in a highly intoxicated state and it was the day when the idol of Lord Ganesh which had been worshiped in the village was being immerged and the prosecution was going on. Several persons were participating in that immersion procession. The accused and the deceased were working as Drivers under one Employee namely, Abhimanyu Pani. It is stated by P.W.2 that during such procession, the accused created gandogal for which the deceased and his brother tied him in his house and some time thereafter, the accused again came and gave a stab at the deceased with knife on the belly that has also been the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. 13. From all these evidence on record, it is seen that there was no prior planning for the incident. The accused was not having any enmity with the deceased. The accused at the relevant time being in an intoxicated state had been restrained by the deceased and his brother being tied in his house and somehow having managed, in releasing himself, the accused in that state of mind, caused the injury by means of a knife on the belly of the deceased. The parties hail from rural background, mostly having high temper showing abnormal and unexpected behavior in silly matters. Having carefully considered all above circumstances emerging from the evidence, we are of the considered view that the offence can be properly categorized as one punishable under section 304-I of IPC. CRLA No.440 of 2012 {{ 9 }} Therefore, we are inclined to modify the impugned judgment of the Trial Court in convicting this accused for the offence punishable under section-302 of IPC and instead, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-I of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. 14. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. With the above modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th January, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.28 of 2011, the Appeal stands disposed of. G. Satapathy, J. I Agree. (D. Dash), Judge. (G. Satapathy), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Dec-2023 15:36:40 CRLA No.440 of 2012