Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2010 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK. JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 85 of 2010 From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2010 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Nayagarh in Sessions Trial Case No.69/179 of 2007. Gopal Sethi …… Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa …… Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : : Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate Mr. J. Katikia, Addl. Government Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA HONOURABLE MISS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 15th May, 2023 S. Talapatra, J. This is an appeal by the convict, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant, from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2010 delivered in S.T. Case No.69/179 of 2007 by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Nayagarh. By the said judgment, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and 2 sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the rest of life with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The trial judge has observed that P.W.2 deposed that in the evening of the occurrence the Appellant was in a drunken state and using abusive language. There had been no cross-examination on that aspect. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has corroborated the said fact. P.W.9 being a close-door neighbour, has testified that the Appellant was a liquor-addict and he was to unruly. On the day of occurrence, he had quarreled with his brother Nityananda Sethi, the deceased. The doctor (P.W.15) who carried out the postmortem examination, has deposed that the stab injury available on the left side of the chest, below the left nipple had cut the chest muscle and the 5th rib. On dissection of the body, he found the said stab injury had penetrated pleura, left lung, left side of pericardium and penetrated in to the left ventricles causing sharp cut injury of size 3 x 3 and full thickness of the left ventricle. The evidence of the doctor unassailed referring his postmortem report, which has been left in the cross-examination, reveals that the intensity of the knife blow made by the Appellant on the deceased. The death was 3 instantaneous at the place of occurrence. According to the trial judge, if the evidence is evaluated in its entirety, there will be a clear picture that the Appellant was in the habit of quarreling with the deceased and other family members, and on the day of occurrence, he had threatened his wife with dire consequences and he had committed murder of his own brother. According to the trial judge, from the evidence, it is clear that intention of the Appellant was to kill his own brother. The death was caused by a single blow dealt by a knife by the Appellant. Based on the said finding, the Appellant has been convicted. 3. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has
Legal Reasoning
challenged those findings contending that the trial judge has caused miscarriage of justice by failing to evaluate the evidence appropriately. That apart, the evidence that the trial Judge has relied for inferring intention to kill is not cogent. The trial judge has committed a serious error of law by not considering the exception, Exception-4 as carved out in Section 300 of the IPC. 4. Before we take note of the submission of the counsel for the parties, we may introduce a brief note of the prosecution case. 4 In the evening of 30.07.2007 there was a quarrel between the mother and wife of Nityananda Sethi, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, in their house situated at village Khatia. The deceased had intervened in the quarrel and advised the women to maintain peace, but at that time, the Appellant who is the younger brother of the deceased questioned the advice and chased the deceased in order to assault him. To protect himself, the deceased ran away, but the Appellant caught him. The Appellant gave a blow by a knife on his chest. At one point of time as a result of the assault, the deceased fell down on the ground and died instantaneously. After the incident, the Appellant fled away from the house. The wife of the deceased, namely, Lili Sethi intimated the matter to the village Gramarakhi (Village Guard) namely, Bikramaditya Ghadei. The said Gramarakhi went to Darpanarayanpur Police Out post on the same night, at about 11. P.M. and lodged the report. The said report was entered in the station diary vide Entry No.507. Thereafter, on the basis of the said report, Sarankul P.S. Case No.91 of 2007 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed charge-sheeting the Appellant. On commitment, the 5 charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the Appellant. The Appellant denied the charge squarely and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses, including one Pintu Sethi (P.W.2) who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. That apart, 15 documentary evidence which included the serological report (Ext.14) and the postmortem examination report (Ext.15). It appears from the records that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused (the Appellant herein). The Appellant was duly examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 6.
Legal Reasoning
At the outset, Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has submitted that the finding of conviction has been returned on relying heavily on the testimony of P.W.2-Pintu Sethi [a child witness]. P.W.8- Sabi Sethi, the mother of the deceased, P.W.6-Matia Sethi, the brother- in-law of the deceased, P.W.7, the Gramarakhi, who informed the occurrence to the police station, P.W.11-the witness to seizure of the blood stained earth and the sample earth, the evidence of P.W.14-the Investigating Officer and P.W.15-the doctor who conducted the 6 postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased were also relied. 7. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has further submitted that P.W.2 has testified that when the deceased was coming from the pond in his company, the Appellant assaulted the deceased by means of a knife in the backside yard. The deceased sustained the bleeding injury on the chest. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the statement of P.W.2, where he has stated that he had pelted a stone to the Appellant and thereafter, the Appellant fled away. Responding to his alarm, the other witnesses reached that place of occurrence. At this juncture, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has, having referred to the deposition of the Investigating Officer stated that P.W.2 did not state to the Investigating Officer that while he was walking in front of his father, the Appellant came, pushed the deceased and assaulted him by a knife. P.W.2 has further stated that while he was attending the nature’s call, the Appellant came and assaulted his father. Thus, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has empathetically submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.14 are divergent and as such, those statements are not worthy of reliance. It has been highlighted by Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel that 7 both the witnesses of discovery of knife namely, Dusasan Jena and Golak Bihari Baral were not examined in the trial. As they were not tendered by the prosecution, they could not be confronted by the defence. Hence, the evidence as sought to be brought and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be accepted. 8. P.W.1 witness to the seizure of sample earth and blood stained earth, has been declared hostile. That apart, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has contended that the prosecution has failed to produce the weapon of offence. While discussing the evidence of P.W.8, the mother of the deceased, it has been pointed out that in the evening when the occurrence took place, there was a quarrel at their home between P.W.8 and P.W.1 and that time was very close to the time of occurrence. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has further stated that P.W.6, Matia Sethi had stated before the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) that as sequel to the quarrel, the Appellant had committed the murder of his younger brother. It has been pointed out by Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel that the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) has categorically stated that while recording the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Appellant had stated that he was angered by the conduct of the deceased. 8 That apart, the deceased had intention to kill the Appellant. He had abused his mother by using slang language. Out sudden provocation, the Appellant assaulted the deceased by means of knife. The deceased sustained injury on the chest and expired. 9. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has having referred to the serological report (Ext.14) contended that the said report is of no use as the knife was not produced in the trial. As sequel to the statement, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has submitted that as the knife was not produced, the use of knife in committing the murder of the deceased cannot be held to have been established. Finally, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has referred to the testimony of P.W.15, the postmortem doctor. It has been contended that, as there was no other injuries on the entire body of the deceased, but a single stab injury and the death according to the postmortem examination report (Ext.15) occurred due to the massive haemorrhage and shock caused by the said injury to heart, the conviction may be converted to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has stated that even though P.W.2 has stated that the Appellant had good relation with his father (the deceased), the mother of the deceased has categorically stated that, following the 9 quarrel as noted above, the said assault was committed by the Appellant. The said evidence has been corroborated by P.W.6. Strangely, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has referred to the statement as recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said statement is only valid for purpose of discovery, not for any other purpose. The inculpating part of such statement cannot be treated as legal evidence. Thus, it has been contended that the Appellant did not have any intention to kill the Appellant in as much as there is no preparation and motive for killing the deceased. Thus, Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel has contended that the charge under Section 302 of the IPC has fallen through and hence, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. He has reiterated that, at best the charge under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC might be tenable. 10. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has in order to repel the submission of the counsel for the Appellant, referred to the evidence of P.W.2, the child witness. The child witness has stated that while he was returning home with his father through the backyard and when from the village pond he was walking ahead of his father, the Appellant came and pushed his 10 father and thereafter, by means of a knife he assaulted his father causing serious injury. Out of anger, he pelted stone to hit the Appellant and he fell down. He had shouted for help and the villager came to the place of occurrence. He has named two villagers, viz Hati Pana (P.W.5) and Satya Pana. Before they had reached, the Appellant fled away. Thereafter, his father took water from him and died. His dead body was brought to their front verandah. The other part of the testimony of P.W.2 relates to the procedure that was followed by the police including the inquest, sending the dead body for the postmortem examination and cremation after the postmortem examination was over. He has categorically stated in the trial as follows: “on the evening of the incident the accd. was in drunken condition and prior to assault he was shouting saying “Pua Maikinaku Aji Randa Karibi” 11. For purpose of record, we take note that P.W.2 has also stated in the trial that the Appellant had good relationship with his parents. P.W.2 has denied the suggestions contrary to his statement as made in the examination-in-chief. He has stated in the cross-examination that the police officer advised him not to say about the episode of pelting stone at the Appellant. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government 11 Advocate has contended that it was a single blow, but the blow was on the vital part of the body and that pierced the lunges and the heart. As such, the conventional single blow theory cannot have any relevance in the present context, as the said single blow had injured the part of lunges and the heart causing death. There is no challenge in respect of such forensic observation. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate has quite empathetically stated that the trial judge has correctly observed that there was clear intention with of the Appellant to kill his own brother, Nityananda Sethi. Notwithstanding, a single blow was dealt with, by a knife, but that may not persuade this court to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 12. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, as noted by us, above, we need to make brief and meaningful survey of the evidence. It may be further noted at the outset that except P.W.2, no witness has seen the stabbing. P.W.1, Lili Sethi, the wife of the deceased has stated that she heard the shout by her son telling “Bada Bapanku Maripakela Dhaina”. She had rushed to the place and found the stab injury on the right side of the chest of her husband and he was lying with the injury. At that time, Hati Pana and 3/4 villagers came for their help. Thereafter, 12 at about 9.00 PM, the police came. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that there was no electric connection to their house and they used lantern (Dibi) for light. There was no light in and around the place of occurrence. She has also corroborated that the Appellant was shouting that he killed the deceased. She has denied the suggestion that injury was caused by an accident. The most important prosecution witness is P.W.2, who was 14 years of age on the day he testified in the trial. His testimony has been elaborately discussed while recording the submission by Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate. Hence, we would refrain from repeating the same. 13. P.W.3, Kailash Naik is a seizure witness of sample earth and blood stained earth and he had identified his signature on the seizure list in the trial. P.W.4 Murali Sethi is the younger brother of the Appellant. At the time of occurrence, he was asleep and having registered the shout of the villagers, he woke up and saw that his elder brother (the deceased) was already dead and he had a bleeding injury by the side of his chest. He has claimed that he went to the village Gramarakhi and reported the occurrence. P.W.4 is the witness to the inquest, the report of which [Ext.1] has been admitted in the evidence. 13 He has denied his knowledge about who committed the murder. P.W.5, Hati Majhi denied to have made the statement as purportedly reported under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, even though he has admitted that he met the Investigating Officer. Consequently, he was declared hostile at the instance of the special public prosecutor and he was cross-examined by the prosecution. According to him, he did not appear in the place of occurrence, but P.W.2 informed him that his paternal uncle had committed the murder of his father. P.W.6, Matia Sethi has denied to have any knowledge about such death. Consequently, he was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Such cross- examination did produce any material which might support the prosecution case. P.W.7, Gramarakhi, to whom P.W.1 and P.W.4 reported the occurrence has admitted that based on his report, the said police station case was registered. His evidence has very limited ramification, but it shows that how the case was registered on the basis of his information. 14. P.W.8, Sabi Sethi, the mother of the Appellant and the deceased has stated that when she was preparing the food in the house of the Appellant, as his wife had gone to his parents’ house for delivering 14 the child, at that time, the wife of the deceased had abused her for maintaining the house of the Appellant. She has further testified that having registered the shout, she had rushed to the spot and found her son dead. He had bleeding injury on the side of the chest. The Appellant had fled away. According to her, the Appellant and the deceased were not in talking terms. In the cross-examination, she has truthfully stated that she had not seen the assault and who killed her son. She has claimed that the police did not examine her. P.W.9, Maharagi Sethi is a co-villager, who had testified in the trial and stated that his house is in the close proximity of the house of the deceased and the Appellant. According to him, P.W.2 came to their house to inform that the Appellant had killed his father. He had rushed to the spot and found the blood-stained body. He had been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution and he was allowed to be cross-examined. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he had stated to the police that the dead body of the deceased (Nityananda Sethi) was brought from the spot to his house by Hati Majhi and Satya Pana. He could not say how many persons were present at that time. It was dark night and by means of the light of the Lantern, he saw the dead body of the deceased. He did not see the assault, but he heard it from the 15 son of the deceased that the Appellant murdered his father. P.W.10, Ram Chandra Sethi is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The said witness has testified that P.W.1 told him that by means of knife, the Appellant assaulted the deceased, who died instantaneously succumbing to the said injury. He was also the witness of the inquest. P.W.11, Satyabadi Naik is a villager and has admitted to have witnessed the seizure of the sample earth and blood stained earth. He was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. He was cross-examined and in the cross-examination, he has stated that on hearing a commotion when he came out, he heard from the villagers that the deceased had been murdered by his own brother (the Appellant). He has admitted that he went to the house of the deceased and saw his dead body lying with grievous bleeding injuries. His wife had told him that the Appellant had committed the murder. He has denied the suggestion that he had been gained over by the Appellant. 15. P.W.12, Kulamani Sethi, uncle of the deceased who lives in a nearby place has stated in the trial that at the time of occurrence, he was at Bhubaneswar. He has not disclosed any material fact while deposing in the trial. P.W.13, Jayakrushna Behera, a police constable 16 had transported the dead body with the challan to the hospital for postmortem examination. 16. P.W.14, Ashok Kumar Sahoo is the Investigating Officer. He has briefly narrated how he has conducted the investigation by visiting the spot and making the site map after receipt of the information in writing (Ext.3). He has also admitted that a preliminary investigation was carried out by one Sub-Inspector of Police. But, that Sub-Inspector of Police was not examined in the trial. He had carried out the inquest over the dead body. He seized the materials such as blood stained earth and sample earth in presence of the witnesses. He had sent the dead body for the postmortem examination through a constable. He arrested the Appellant while he was trying to disappear from the village. During his examination the Appellant had confessed his guilt that being irked by quarrel, he could not control his passion, and by means of a knife he assaulted his brother, Nityananda Sethi. He had recorded his confessional statement (Ext.5) in presence of the witnesses. He has identified that statement. Thereafter, he had sent the seized articles for scientific examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Rasulgarh and received their reports, Exts.12, 13 and 14. Similarly, he 17 had received the inquest report (Ext.1) carried out by one Mr. Tripathy, ASI of police and also the postmortem examination report (Ext.11). He has stated that P.W.5, Hati Majhi had clearly stated that he came to know from the son of the deceased that the Appellant had killed his father and he, with other co-villagers had rushed to the spot and found the dead body lying. He has also stated that Matia Sethi, P.W.6 had clearly stated to him that following quarrel, his younger brother-in-law, the Appellant had killed his own brother. He had rushed to the spot on hearing the news. The Investigating Officer has also testified in the trial that, he seized a lungi from the Appellant. There was blood stain on the lungi. The Appellant led to discovery of the weapon of offence which he had seized in presence of the witnesses. P.W.15, Dr. Pitabas Tripathy was working as the Asst. Surgeon at D.H.H., Nayagarh. On the requisition in connection with Sarankul P.S. Case No.507 of 2007, he conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Netei @ Nityananda Sethi. The dead body was identified by one constable, namely, J.K. Behera from Sarankul P.S. During the postmortem examination, he made the following observation: 18 “External injuries: Rigor mortise present. All the four limbs, eyes half opened conjunctiva congested, cornea hazy, pupil dilated, mouth half opened, tounge inside the teeth normal, all are in position, hands half clenched, saliva was coming from right angle of mouth, Ant bit mark were present over face, and shoulder and neck, A wound of size 3.1/2 cm x 2cm. x thoracic cavity in sign i.e. (a stab wound) situated over left side of the chest-1” left and lateral and below to left nipple cutting the chest mussel and with 5th rib. Internal injuries: On dissection of said injury over left chest, it was found that the injury had penetrated pleura, left lung, left side of pericardium and penetrated the left ventricle causing sharp cut of size 3’x3’x full thickness of left ventricle. There is extravacation of blood from the heart to the thoracic cavity. Abdomen, liver spleen and kidney are pale. Stomach contains 200 gms. of semi-digested rice. Small intestine contains gruel, large intestine contains foul smelling gas and fecal matter. Genito urinary system in normal.” The postmortem doctor has given a clear opinion on the basis of his report. According to him, the death was due to massive haemorrhage and shock by the direct injury to the heart. His opinion is also available in the postmortem examination report (Ext.15). But, the principal opinion-report is Ext.11. The defence had made an attempt to cross-examination P.W.15, but has failed to extract out any material which might dent the prosecution case. 17. We have scrutinized the documentary evidence as brought in the record and found no document, except the memorandum of seizure leading to discovery of the weapon of offence is in 19 contradistinction to the oral evidence. From the evaluation of the evidence, what has surfaced is that there is no forensic proof that the seized knife was used for the assault. Even the knife was not produced in the trial. Without the object, mere proving of the seizure list cannot give any advantage to the prosecution. 18. From a reading of the impugned judgment, it appears to us that the examination report, which has been termed everywhere in the judgment as the confessional statement, has become instrumental for coming to the finding of conviction. Even though, according to P.W.14, the Appellant did lead to the discovery of the weapon of offence. But, we are constrained to observe that in absence of witnesses of the said seizure in the trial, we cannot accept the fact of discovery. Apart from that, it is well settled that even if, the fact of leading to discovery is proved by adequate cogent evidence, then also the inculpating part cannot be treated as the legal evidence, in as much as Section 27 of the India Evidence Act does not completely waive the protection as provided under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which clearly debar accepting the confession made to a police officer as 20 evidence. For purpose of reference, let us reproduce Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act hereunder: “25. No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” Section 26 is a more specific provision in this regard. It provides that the confession by the accused while in custody of police is not to be proved against him. Hence, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be used against such person. The prosecution did not bring any evidence that the purported confessional statement was made in the immediate person of a Magistrate. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is very categorical in respect of how much of information received from the accused may be proved. The fact, revealed by the accused leading to discovery objects or fact relating to any offence, in the custody of a police officer can be admitted as the fact thereby discovered and may be proved. Therefore, except the fact leading to discovery of the weapon or other materials, no other part from the statement can be used against the accused person. Therefore, the purported confessional statement cannot be treated as the confessional statement admissible in the evidence. There cannot be any 21 amount of doubt that the death has been caused from the injury on the chest, and there is no cross-examination on the opinion of P.W.15. Only question that is pertinent remains to be answered is that who committed the murder or whether this is a murder or a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this regard, the evidence of Pintu Sethi (P.W.2) and Sabi Sethi (P.W.8) are material. P.W.2, a child witness, has stated that while his father in his company returning home from a village pond, the Appellant pushed him aside and by means of a knife assaulted him causing serious injury. Out of anger, he pelted stone at him and cried out for help. Two villagers, namely, Hati Pana and Satya Pana had appeared. But before they appeared in the spot, the Appellant fled away. P.W.2 has further stated that the accused was in a drunken state and prior to the assault, he shouted by saying that “Pua Maikinaku Aji Randa Karibi”. Let us revisit those statements of P.W.2. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has denied the suggestion contrary to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief. He has stated in the cross-examination that prior to the incident, the Appellant has good relationship with his deceased father. But that part of the statement has not been supported by P.W.8, Sabi Sethi, the mother of the Appellant and the deceased. According to 22 her, there was no talking term between the Appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence. Surprisingly enough P.W.2 does not make any reference to the quarrel that preceded the occurrence. The trial judge has referred to the testimony of P.W.9 to observe that the Appellant used to indulge in unruly behaviour under the influence of liquor. 19. The trial judge in Paragraph-26 of the impugned judgment has clearly observed as follows: “So there was clear intention with the accused while killing his own brother-Nityananda even though a single blow was giving by knife in making such offence.” 20. Having critically analyzed the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 8, we are of the view that, except one insignificant incongruity as regard the relation between the Appellant and the deceased, their statements can be relied. True it is that the Appellant gave a single blow, but the single blow by itself cannot be the index of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The assault of the said nature has to be viewed in the context of the perspective fact as proved by the prosecution such as, element of premeditation, nature of weapon of offence and the nature of injury dealt by the accused person. What is apparent on the face of the records is that, there was no immediate fight or provocation on the part of the 23 deceased. The quarrel as referred by the witnesses was between the mother of the Appellant and the wife of the deceased. In this regard, the reference can be made to the testimony of P.W.8. Therefore, it can be held that the deceased had never participated in any quarrel or altercation as sought to be projected by the defence. It may be for the long pending dispute between the parties, the Appellant had indulged in the culpable act causing death of his brother. 21. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we are persuaded to hold that there is no reason to discard the testimony of P.W.2, as his presence has been proved without doubt by the post-occurrence witnesses who heard his alarm and rushed to the place of occurrence. Moreover, it appears to us that his testimony has not been tainted by tutoring. On scrutiny of his statement, we would also observe that, we find no reason why P.W.2 would make any false statement against his own uncle (the Appellant). The weapon of offence had been seized, but it was not produced in the trial, nor the forensic report has supported the prosecution case. Hence, whether the seized weapon of offence was used in committing the offence has not been clearly established. This may be a failure by the prosecution, but that 24 failure does not destroy the substantive evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution case has been substantively proved by P.W.2, the solitary eye witness on whom, we have placed our reliance, as the defence has miserably failed to discredit him in any manner. 22. So far as the intention to kill is concerned, we have considered the submission made by Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the Appellant but we find from the transaction of the offence that the intention is apparent and in this regard, the trial judge did not commit any error. Hence, we discard the alternative submission of bringing the offence under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As corollary, we affirm the finding of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. But, we would like to modify the sentence to the extent that, instead of rigorous imprisonment for the rest of life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer 1 year more rigorous imprisonment, the sentence shall be rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine, he is to suffer one year more rigorous imprisonment. It is ordered accordingly. 23. Subject to the partial modification in the sentence, we dismiss the appeal. 25 24. LCRs, if any, lying with the Registry shall be returned. M.SSavitri Ratho, J. I agree. …………………………… ( S. Talapatra, J.) …………………………… (Savitri Ratho, J.) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2023 16:55:17