The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.5 of 2013 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 19th November, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2011. ---- Chandra Sekhar Pradhani …. Appellant -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.S. Hota (Advocate as Amicus Curiae) For Respondent - Mrs.Saswata Patnaik Additional Government Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY Date of Hearing : 21.11.2023 : Date of Judgment : 04.12.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th November, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.244 of 2010 corresponding to Balliguda P.S. Case No.91 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Balliguda. JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year for commission of the said offence. 2. PROSECUTION CASE:- The accused, namely, Chandra Sekhar Pradhani had married one Ichha Pradhani, who died after giving birth to a son, namely, Sankrati Pradhani (Informant-P.W.1). The accused then married one Dulhai Pradhani. Since no child was born through Dulai, quarrel used to take place between the accused and Dulhai. Sometime in the year 2006-2007, after a quarrel, wherein the accused had assaulted Dulhai, the son of the accused (Sankrati) (Informant-P.W.1) failed in his attempt to make the accused understand and remain silent. On 28.11.2010 morning, the Informant (P.W.1) and his wife (Kanchan-P.W.2) went to their land at Gadagadadangaru for having the ploughing operation over there. Sankrati (P.W.1) when returned home around 8.00 a.m., the accused, having quarreled with his wife Dulhai, had assaulted on the head of Dulhai by means of an axe and left the house. JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} A report being scribed by Bhagirathi Baliarsingh (P.W.10), the Informant (P.W.1) submitted the same to the Inspector-in- Charge of Balliguda Police Station (P.S.). The IIC (P.W.16),
Legal Reasoning
treating the written report as FIR (Ext.1), registered the case and took up the investigation. 3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.16), in course of the investigation, examined the informant (P.W.1). The I.O. (P.W.16), having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.13). He too held inquest over the dead body in presence of the witness and prepared the report (Ext.2). He (P.W.16) sent the dead body of Dulhai for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The blood stained earth and sample earth were seized by the I.O. (P.W.16) under seizure list (Ext.4). It was stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement, the accused is said to have led the police (P.W.16) and other witnesses in giving recovery of the weapon, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.5). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} 4. Learned S.D.J.M., Balliguda, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total sixteen (16) witnesses during Trial. Out of them, the informant, who happens to be the son of the accused is P.W.1. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are the co-villagers of the accused. P.W.10 is the scribe of the FIR. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased whereas the I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box is P.W.16. 6. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 16. Out of those, the important are, the FIR (Ext.1), the inquest report (Ext.2), the post mortem report (Ext.8) and the spot map (Ext.13). The Chemical Examiner’s report had been admitted into evidence and marked Ext.16. 7. The accused has taken the plea of complete denial and false implication. He, however, has not tendered any evidence in support of his defence. JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }}
Legal Reasoning
8. Mr.S.Hota, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the prosecution case is not based on direct evidence and the prosecution relies on the evidence of the witnesses, who have stated about circumstances, which according to the prosecution although are incriminating, yet in fact those are not. He submitted that the circumstances are that the accused and the deceased were residing in the house as husband and wife, the deceased met a homicidal death and she was found lying dead in the house with injuries on her head. He submitted that these circumstances are not enough to find out the complicity of the accused nor are sufficient for the prosecution to discharge the burden of proof so as to be shifted to the accused in saying that although the facts leading to the death of his wife were within his special knowledge and he thus was having the obligation as per law to explain. He submitted that accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused cannot be held guilty to have committed the murder of his wife. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are liable to be set aside. 9. Mrs.Saswata Patniak, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted all in favour of the finding of guilt against the accused as has been returned by the Trial court. She contended that basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7, the JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused in intentionally causing the death of his wife Dulhai. 10. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.16) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.16. 11. Before going to scrutinize the evidence on record in ascertaining whether the Trial Court’s finding holding the accused guilty of committing the murder of his wife Dulhai would sustain or not, it be stated that the prosecution, in order to prove the nature of death of Dulhai, has first of all examined the Doctor (P.W.11), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Dulhai. It is her evidence that she had noticed one chopped wound on the head of the deceased and that according to her was my means of a heavy sharp cutting weapon and has led to the death because of shock resulting therefrom. P.W.11 has stated the death of Dulhai to be homicidal in nature. The I.O. (P.W.16), in his inquest report, has also indicated the injury, which he had noticed, which matches with the one stated by the Doctor (P.W.11). Other witnesses including the Informant (P.W.1) have stated to have seen the deceased lying JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} dead with injury on her head. Thus, the nature of death of the deceased has been proved by the prosecution to be homicidal. The deceased is none other than the wife of the accused and as per the evidence of the son of the accused (Informant-P.W.1) and others, they were staying in the house of the accused of P.W.1 is none other than the son of the accused. His evidence is that when he returned home, he noticed his father (accused) having assaulted his mother by an axe on the left side of her head and going away. He has also stated that the accused, after assaulting his wife (deceased) went away carrying the axe with him from the spot. His version in the FIR was that the accused and the deceased, being engaged in a quarrel, the accused assaulted on the head of the deceased on the backyard of the house and ray away through the front door of the house. During cross-examination, it has been stated that when he arrived at the entrance of the house, the accused went away after having assaulted the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. She states that when she returned, she saw the deceased lying dead inside the behind their house with injury on her head on left side and she was told that the accused assaulted the deceased by an axe and caused her death, who told her is of course not disclosed. But then P.W.1 states that he with his wife (P.W.2) and children gone to their land. Thus, what P.W.1 states to have seen the accused assaulting JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} the deceased is not stated to by P.W.2 and also the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused ran away after they arrived in the house is not deriving the support from the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 is stated to have left the house in the morning whereafter her husband followed. She states that after her arrival, P.W.1 told her that the accused assaulted the deceased. P.W.1 is silent as to when P.W.2 came back home. He is also not stating to have disclosed before P.W.2 as regards the role of the accused in assaulting the deceased and running away. P.W.3 says to have heard about the incident when others were shouting that the accused had killed Dulhai. P.W.4 has stated that when P.W.1 reached his house from the field, he shouted that his father (accused) assaulted his mother (deceased). It is his evidence that when he reached the house, he noticed the deceased was lying on the verandah of the house with injury on her left side head and, therefore, the matter was reported at the P.S. He states P.W.1 to have gone to P.S. He does not say that P.W.1 had told before him to have seen the incident where the accused had given the fatal blow by means of a sharp cutting weapon. Interestingly, P.W.5 says that P.W.1 was shouting that the accused murdered the deceased. But, P.W.5 does not state to have asked anything to P.W.1 so as to get the information as regards the death of his father. JCRLA No.5 of 2013 Page 8 of 9 {{ 9 }} The evidence of P.W.7 is to the effect that P.W.1 arrived in the house, shouted that the accused killed his mother by axe and hearing the shout of P.W.1, P.W.7 had gone to the house and noticed Dulhai lying dead with bleeding injury on her head. He states to have not seen the accused at the place when he arrived. However, his evidence is that the accused fled away with the axe having kept that concealed. All these being the evidence on record, we find the prosecution to have not at all established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. 12. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th November, 2012 respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2011 are hereby set aside. Since the accused, namely, Chandra Sekhar Pradhani is in custody, he be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. G.Satapathy, J. I Agree. (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Basu Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 07-Dec-2023 12:31:12 JCRLA No.5 of 2013 (G.Satapathy), Judge. Page 9 of 9