The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.62 of 2012 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 5th July, 2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Keonjhar in S.T Case No.4/229 of 2012-11. Raghunath Sethy State of Odisha -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Smt.Susama Rani Sahoo, S.K. Parida, C.R. Sahu (Advocates) For Respondent - Mr.S.K.Nayak, Additional Government Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :13.09.2023 : Date of Judgment : 14.09.2023 D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail,
Legal Reasoning
has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th July, 2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Keonjhar in S.T Case No.4/229 of 2012-11 arising out of G.R Case No.514 of 2011, corresponding to Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.110 of 2011 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Keonjhar. Page 1 of 8 JCRLA No.62 of 2012 {{ 2 }} The Appellant (accused person) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC’) and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months. 2. PROSECUTION CASE:- One Sarat Charan Sethy (Informant-P.W.2) lodged a report before Inspector in Charge (IIC), Keonjhar Sadar Police Station that on 08.06.2011 around 1.00 p.m., his brother, Raghunath (accused) was in the habit of picking up quarrel in his house everyday and frequently creating unpleasant situation. Kunaram Sethy, the son of the accused on that day, being unable to continue in that atmosphere, packed up his bag and baggage with an intention to leave the house. Kunaram, while coming out, the accused getting enraged, dealt a lathi blow on Kunaram, which landed on the head. Kunaram, receiving the injury fell down on the ground. The deceased, thereafter being taken into the District Headquarters Hospital (DHQ, Hospital), Keonjhar, was declared dead. Receiving the said written report, the IIC, treated the same as F.I.R. and registered the case, directed one Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I.) (P.W.11) to take up investigation. JCRLA No.62 of 2012 Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} 3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) (P.W.11) then examined the informant (P.W.2) and thereafter other witnesses. Having gone to the spot, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext. 1) to that effect in presence of witnesses. The dead body was then sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The I.O. (P.W.11) in course of investigation also seized some articles which according to him were incrementing and later on those articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. 4. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted placing these accused persons and three others to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC. 5. Learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the offence under section 302 of the IPC 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 persons. 6. In the trial, the prosecution examined in total 11 witnesses. Out of them P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 are the eye witnesses and as such they are the star witnesses for the prosecution. 7. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has proved several documents which JCRLA No.62 of 2012 Page 3 of 8 {{ 4 }} have been admitted in the evidence and marked Ext. 1 to 12. Important of those are the F.I.R. (Ext. 2), Inquest Report (Ext. 1) and Postmortem Examination Report (Ext. 5). The spot map prepared by the I.O. (P.W.11) has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext. 10 where as the opinion of the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased given at the request of the I.O. (P.W. 11) is Ext.6. 8. The doctor (P.W.9), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.9 and as already stated P.W.11 is the I.O. 9. The accused, having taken the plea of denial and false implication, has, however not tendered any evidence in support of the defense.
Legal Reasoning
10. Mr.C.R.Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), from very beginning, instead of attacking the finding as to the authorship of the injury upon the deceased attributed to the accused as has been recorded by the Trial Court, confined the submission that viewing the happenings in the incident as also the subsequent events, the relationship etc. when are kept in view with the fact that the parties hail from remote rural back ground whose tamper usually run high and behavior for silly reasons, often becomes abnormal, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for commission of offence under section JCRLA No.62 of 2012 Page 4 of 8 {{ 5 }} 302 of the IPC. He, therefore, urged for altercation of conviction for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC to offence under Section 304-I of the IPC and accordingly, he contended that the accused be visited with the sentences appropriate for the said offence. 11. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted all favour of the finding returned by the Trial Court that the accused is liable for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. He further submitted that the blow being by lathi, on the head of the deceased, the Trial Court did commit no mistake in holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 12. 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.11) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.12/1. 13. In order to address the rival submission surrounding the categorization of the offence for which the accused would be held liable for the played and the act done by him in the incident, let us have the over the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3. JCRLA No.62 of 2012 Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} 14. The younger brother of the accused is the informant had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 2). It reveals from the F.I.R. (Ext.2) quarrel in the family was a regular feature in the family and thus, the atmosphere was most of the time remaining surcharged and polluted. 15. On the relevant date and time creating such a situation when the deceased having planned to have the house with his wife and mother and stay there at Keonjhar in a rented house was going away suddenly out of anger, the accused is said to have dealt a lathi blow upon Kunaram, which landed on his head. It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is a neighbour, is that Kunaram Sethy was opposing the conduct of his father (accused) and was dissatisfied with his quarrelsome behaviour being frequently shown during their leaving and he was contemplating to leave the house. He was further stated that the accused then gave a lathi blow on Kunaram Sethy. It has also been stated by this P.W.1 that the accused had given the solitary blow on the deceased. P.W.2 the informant has stated that the accused getting enraged dealt a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, which resulted his fall. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that in order, some behavior of the accused, when the deceased packed his bag and baggage for leaving the house, the accused got enraged and picking up the lathi gave a blow on the head of the deceased, which resulted his fall. The wife of the deceased has also stated Page 6 of 8 JCRLA No.62 of 2012 {{ 7 }} that the accused having got enraged gave a blow by means of lathi on the head of her husband, which led to his fall. Although she states that thereafter the accused had dealt a lathi blow on the neck of her husband, the same is not stated by the other witnesses whose evidence have already been discussed. The doctor conducting postmortem examination over the dead body found lacerated injury on the occipital region of the scalp with haematoma surrounding the injury. It is not stated by the doctor (P.W.9) that the injury caused is not the result of solitary blow being given on the head of the deceased or is the result of multiple blows. These appears no prior planning for the incident at the behest of the accused and although it is seen from the evidence that this accused was of quarrelsome behaviour, they do not breathe word as to what was/were the reasons behind that day’s quarrel. The evidence also reveal that the accused from the beginning was carrying that lathi, which he is said to have only picked up after being enraged when the deceased wanted to leave the house. The parties hail from rural pocket of a schedule district of the State. Judicial notice can be taken note on the fact that ordinarily their tamper run high and for silly reasons, they many a times behave differently, at times quite in an unexpected manner. 16. Taking the cumulative view of all these above circumstances appearing in the evidence, as discussed; we are of Page 7 of 8 JCRLA No.62 of 2012 {{ 8 }} the view that the offence could be properly categorized as one punishable under section 304-I of the IPC. We are thus of the considered opinion that for the role played by the accused and the act done, he would be liable for conviction under Section 304- I of the IPC. In that view of the matter, this Court, alters the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC to one under section 304-I of the IPC. Consequently, the Appellant (accused) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. 17. With the above modification as to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th July, 2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Keonjhar in S.T.
Decision
Case No. 4/229 of 2012-11, the Appeal stands disposed of. A.C.Behera, J. I Agree. True Copy Signature Not Verified Jr. Stenographer Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Sep-2023 17:51:21 Utkalika JCRLA No.62 of 2012 Sd/- (D. Dash), Judge. Sd/- (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 8 of 8