The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NO.125 OF 2014 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 18.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No.162/35/15 of 2012-13. ---- Guddu @ Chintamani Baghel …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ================================================= For Appellant - Mr. S. Sourav, For Respondent - Mr. S.K. Nayak, Advocate. Additional Government Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA DATE OF HEARING :03.10.2023:DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09.10.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 respectively arising out of G.R. Case No.157 of 2012 corresponding to Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.24 of 2012 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Sundargarh. CRLA NO.125 OF 2014 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} It is stated here that this Appellant with his brother, namely, Manoj @ Manna Baghel had filed this Appeal. During pendency of this Appeal, convict Manoj @ Manna having died, as no one coming forward to pursue the Appeal on his behalf; the Appeal stood abated in so far as that convict is concerned. The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short called as ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Prosecution case is that on 01.03.2012 around 4 pm, when Sahadev Badek and his wife were in the house, Baladev Baghel and his two sons namely Gudu and Manoj @ Mana Baghel came and they assaulted Sahadev by means of a wooden plank on his head and hand. When his wife and another relation namely, Niranjan (P.W.7) arrived, the accused persons fled away. As a result of said assault, Sahadev, the father of the Informant, namely, Janma Badaik (P.W.8) sustained bleeding injuries on his head and fracture on his right hand. The Informant (P.W.8) immediately shifted his father and admitted him at District Headquarter Hospital, Sundargarh and the matter was reported to the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC) Sundargarh Sadar Police Station on the same date at 8 pm. The IIC, having treated the same as CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} F.I.R., registered the case and directed the Asst. Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Police of that Police Station, i.e. P.W.9 to take up investigation. 3. In course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.9) examined the Informant (P.W.8), the injured-Sahadev Badaik at the P.S. and issued injury requisition in his favour for his medical examination. He then visited the spot, seized the weapon of offence i.e. one sal lathi stained with blood in presence of witnesses along with the blood stained earth and sample earth and prepared seizure list, Ext.6. He too prepared the spot map- Ext.9. On the next day, i.e., on 02.03.2012, the IIC got the information that injured Sahadeev Badaik while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries at the District Headquarter Hospital, Sundargarh. So, the IO (P.W.9) held inquest over the dead body of the deceased-Sahadev in presence of witnesses and prepared the inquest report to that effect, Ext.1. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination by issuance of necessary requisition. On his transfer, he handed over the charge of investigation to the then IIC (P.W.12), who re-examined few witnesses and on completion of investigation, submitted the Final Form placing the accused persons namely, Manoj @ Manna Baghel (since dead), Balabhadra Baghel and Guddu @ Chintamani Baghel placing them to face the trial for commission of offence under section-302/34 of the IPC. CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} 4. The learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of said offence and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the said offence against the accused. 5. In the Trial, the prosecution has examined in total twelve (12) witnesses. Out of whom, as already stated that the Informant who is son of the deceased had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.7) is P.W.8, P.W.1 is wife of the deceased-Sahadev, P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and is a post occurrence witness as also the witness to the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased whereas P.W.9 is the eye witness. P.W.4 is the medical officer who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Two I.Os. of the case have been examined as P.W.9 and 12. 6. The prosecution besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses has also proved several documents, which have been admitted and marked as Exts.1 to 12. Out of those, as already stated the F.I.R. is Ext.7 whereas the inquest report, postmortem examination report and spot map have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1, 2 and 8 respectively. CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} 7. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial. However, no evidence has been tendered from the side of the accused during the trial. 8. The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence on record and placing reliance upon the evidence of the eye witnesses P.W.1 and 7 and the medical evidence coming from the lips of P.W.4 has concluded that the charge against the accused persons for the offence under section-302/34 of the IPC for having intentionally caused the death of Sahadev by assaulting him by means of wooden plank has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this accused has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced as aforestated. It be stated here that the Trial Court having found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charge as against the accused namely, Balabhadra Baghel who is the father of this accused, has acquitted him and it is stated at the Bar that said order of acquittal of the father of this accused has not been under challenged. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) without disputing the nature of death of Sahadev to be homicidal as has been held by the Trial Court relying upon the evidence of Doctor, P.W.4, who had conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Sahadev, the I.O. P.W.9, who held inquest over CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} the dead body of the deceased and other witnesses, who had seen the deceased in an injured condition, 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, when the accused was not holding any weapon. In view of all these above, 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 CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} IPC. He contended that this accused with others having assaulted the deceased by means of Sal lathi, 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 11. 12. Addressing the rival submissions on the question of altercation of the conviction, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased that when her husband was standing on the threshing floor, this accused with his father and brother came being armed with lathi and split wood and assaulted Sahadev. She has further stated that her husband was having some problem in his hydrocele when it is the evidence of P.W.4 who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased that the death was on account of the injuries to the vital organ like brain. This P.W.1, however, does not attribute this accused who have caused to any injury on the head of Sahadev (deceased). P.W.6 having stated that his father-in-law had disclosed the fact that this accused and two others had assaulted him, does not CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} state that his father-in-law (deceased-Sahadev) had told that this accused had caused the injuries by means of lathi or wooden plank on his head. P.W.7 is stated to have seen this accused and his brother assaulting Sahadev by sal lathi. He also does not state that this accused has assaulted Sahadev on his head. P.W.8 has also stated to have been told by his father that this accused and two others had assaulted him. He is even silent as to the user of lathi by this accused. The incident having taken place on 01.03.2012, Sahadev met his death on 02.03.2012 in the hospital while undergoing treatment. It is said by P.W.6 that accused persons suddenly arrived and started assaulting the deceased. When absolutely no evidence is forthcoming with regard to any ill feeling between the deceased and accused persons for any reason whatsoever, the above story as to the occurrence presented by P.W.6 gives rise to suspicion in mind that some other happenings prior to the actual assault are being suppressed. 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. 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 Page 8 of 9 CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 {{ 9 }} 304-I of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. 13. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. With the above modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No.162/35/15 of 2012-13, the Appeal stands disposed of. (D. Dash), Judge. Mr. A.C. Behera, J. I Agree. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Oct-2023 17:43:43 CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014 Page 9 of 9