MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.64 of 2010 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment dated 05.12.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.161 of 2009. Gopal Munda …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 18.03.2024: Date of judgment : 15.04.2024 V. Narasingh, J. The Appellant from jail assailing his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentencing him for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo R.I for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC in terms of the judgment and order of sentence dated 05.12.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.161 of 2009, has filed this Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.1.2009 one Rangutu Dehury (Informant- P.W.1) lodged a written report before the I.I.C, Nayakote Police Station stating therein that he worked at Narasinghpur. One Arjuna Pradhan and Purna Naik informed him JCRLA No.64 of 2010 Page 1 of 5 that somebody had killed his father Dadu Dehury (deceased) and asked him to come with them. When he reached at home in village Luhakala, his mother informed him that the deceased had been to Bhaliadihi around 12 o’clock and did not return and the dead body of the deceased was found in front of the house of Duburu Munda and there had been severe bleeding injury on his head. On the basis of the same, Nayakote P.S. Case No.1 of 2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and on the basis of the same, the accused faced trial being charged under Section 302 IPC for causing death of the deceased Jadu Dehury. 3. To fortify its stand, the prosecution has cited 6 witnesses. P.W.1 is the Informant, P.W.2 is the eye witness to the occurrence, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased and they too were eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5 is the I.O and P.W. 6 is the doctor who had conducted post mortem of the deceased. Besides the above, the prosecution has proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 10. 4. The defence plea was one of complete denial and false implication. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) from the very beginning, instead of raising any doubt with regard to the homicidal nature of death of the deceased, as has been proved by the prosecution, submitted that even accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses in the light of surrounding circumstances as regards the death of Jadu Dehury, the way the injuries are said to JCRLA No.64 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 have caused upon Jadu Dehury, submitted that the learned Trial Court ought not to have held the accused guilty for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 5-A. According to him, accepting the prosecution case as established through the evidence, the accused ought to have been convicted under Section 304-II IPC. Accordingly, he urged for alteration of the conviction of the accused from 302 IPC to one under Section 304-II IPC. 6. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been held by the learned Trial Court for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC submitted that the accused assaulted the deceased by means of lathi and that too on his head and when it has been proved that the injuries caused by such assault to the accused, has led to the death of the deceased, the learned Trial Court cannot be said to have erred in holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 7. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully perused the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also extensively travelled through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.2, 3 and 4) and have also perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 10. 8. It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the eye witness to the occurrence, that accused had assaulted the deceased by means of a lathi as a result of which he died and at the time of occurrence he was sitting on the verenda of Diburu. JCRLA No.64 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 9. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased and eye witnesses to the occurrence. In their evidence, they have stated that when they were husking paddy in their house on the date of occurrence, accused and the deceased were talking with each other. Sardar Munda (P.W.2) was also sitting there. Hearing a sound they came out of their house and found that accused assaulted the deceased by means of a lathi on his head and the deceased fell down on the ground. Out of fear, they closed the door and ran away. 10. Thus, with the above evidence on record, we find the prosecution to have proved that the accused assaulted the deceased by means of a lathi on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. Further, it appears to us that the prosecution witnesses are suppressing as to why and how the quarrel started. It is the evidence of the P.Ws.3 and 4 who are sisters of the deceased that the accused and deceased were talking with each other and hearing a sound they came out of their house and found that the accused was assaulting the deceased by means of a lathi. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is also not to the effect that the accused had given repeated blows by that lathi on the head of the deceased or that the blow was with considerable force. 10-A. The evidence discussed, as above, being cumulatively viewed with the fact that the parties hail from rural pocket of the State and ordinarily their temper run high and for silly reasons, they many times behave irrationally, in a quite unexpected manners; we are of the view that the offence committed ought to be categorized as one punishable under Section 304-II IPC. JCRLA No.64 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 11. We are thus of the considered opinion that for the manner in which the accused committed the offence, he would be liable for conviction under Section 304-II IPC. In such view of the matter, this Court converts the conviction under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304-II IPC and reduces the period of sentence to incarceration already undergone. 12.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the above modification as to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.161 of 2009. Since the accused is stated to be on bail, the bail bonds stand cancelled. (V. Narasingh) Judge (D. Dash) Judge D. Dash, J : I agree. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 15th April, 2024/ Pradeep Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 18:20:51 JCRLA No.64 of 2010 Page 5 of 5