The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.12 OF 2012 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 4th November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rourkela, Camp at Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.42/07 of 2010. Rudra Charan Naik State of Odisha ---- -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: =============================================== For Appellant - Ms. A. Ray, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING:07.11.2023 :DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.11.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rourkela, Camp at Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.42/07 of 2010 arising out of Bonai P.S. Case No.103 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No.561 of 2009 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (S.D.J.M.), Bonai. CRLA NO.12 OF 2012 Page 1 of 8 {{ 2 }} The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short called as ‘the IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section-302 of the IPC with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Prosecution case is that sometime in the month of April-May, 2009, the accused had permitted Raju Rohidas to operate his stone quarry on payment of a sum of Rs.250/- and Raju Rohidas has paid a sum of Rs.50/- for the same, promising the balance to be paid later. Since, said Raju Rohidas did not pay the balance amount, the accused was annoyed with him and was in search of an opportune moment to take the revenge. On 05.11.2005, getting the opportunity, the accused is said to have assaulted Raju Rohidas by Farsa. Receiving said injury, Raju Rohidas fell down on the ground and met his death at the spot. Tikeswar Rohidas, Informant (P.W.1) then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge, Bonai Police Station. Receiving the said written report, the IIC treated the same as the FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up the investigation. 3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.12), having examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.11), held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.2). The dead body of the deceased was the sent for postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The I.O. (P.W.12) arrested the accused. While the accused was in custody is stated to have kept the Farsa in a place known to him and so saying he led the CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} police and other witnesses to the place and gave recovery of the Farsa in presence of the witnesses. The I.O. (P.W.12) had recorded the statement of the accused (Ext.5). The wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased were seized under seizure lists which are marked as (Ext.8) and Ext.10. Further the I.O.(P.W.12) collected the sample blood of accused and seized his nail clippings. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.12) submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 4. Learned S.D.J.M., Bonai, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offences 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 aforesaid offences against this accused. 5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total, twelve (12) witnesses. As already stated, the informant-brother of the deceased, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.1 is not an eye witness, he came to know about the incident from his sister (P.W.2). P.W.2 is the sister of the Informant and the deceased and P.W.3 is also the niece of the Informant and deceased. They are the eye witness to the occurrence and seen that the accused had assaulted the deceased by means of Farsa P.W.4 is the medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 5 is the sister-in-law of the deceased (brother’s wife) and another eye witness to the occurrence; P.W.7 is the wife of the deceased was also the eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the witnesses to the seizure, whereas P.W.10 is the witness to the inquest held over the dead body of the Page 3 of 8 CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 {{ 4 }} deceased. The I.O. of the case has come to the witness box at the end has examined as P.W.12. 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 11. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2); the spot map, Ext.11; the post mortem report (Ext.3). 6. The accused person, in support his plea of denial and false implication has, however, not tendered any evidence despite opportunity. 7. The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence and their evaluation at its level has held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under section-302 of the IPC as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. Accordingly, the accused has been convicted for the said offences and sentenced as aforestated. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the prosecution when relies upon the version of the P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to establish the complicity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime in causing the death of Raju Rohidas by giving blows by means of Farsa, the Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of those witnesses from every possible angle, even though grave suspicion arises in mind as to their presence at the spot in seeing the incident has gone wrong in holding the accused guilty for commission of the murder of deceased-Raju Rohidas. CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 Page 4 of 8 {{ 5 }} 9. Learned Counsel for the State-Respondent on the other hand supported the finding against the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court. He submitted that when it has been established through evidence of the Doctor (P.W.4) that the death of Raju Rohidas was homicidal in nature on account of injury being caused by sharp cutting weapon like Farsa, the same provide ample corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, who have categorically stated that it is the accused who dealt the fatal blows upon the deceased. He submitted that there is absolutely no infirmity in the evidence of the above witnesses so as to view those with suspicion on any count whatsoever. 10. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully read the judgment of conviction. We have also extensively travelled through the depositions of all the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.12 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 11. 11. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.4), while conducting the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased had found one cut injury present at the dorsum of lower part of the face (left side) and upper part of the neck mandible area of size 10cm x 4cm x 6cm and one internal injury on fracture of the mandible on left side, left facial attry being cut. His evidence is that the death the deceased-Raju Rohidas might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and the nature of death was homicidal. In addition to that, we find the evidence of P.W.12, who is the I.O, who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ext.2, which finds mention that the deceased had sustained CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} such injury on his person. With such evidence on record going unchallenged, we are left with no option but to hold that the deceased had met a homicidal death. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and the Informant. The F.I.R. (Ext.1) lodged by him is to the effect that the accused was bearing grudge against his brother for non-receipt of the agreed amount from his brother (deceased). He is not an eye witness to the occurrence and that he has clearly stated during cross-examination although he has narrated the incident during his examination-in-chief as to how the brother died which is of no help. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.1 has however stated on that day, accused holding Farsa came to their house and was found moving around and when the wife of P.W.1 asked the accused as to why he was coming with Farsa, the accused replied that he had come there to kill the deceased. Her further evidence is that the accused then left the place and concealed himself somewhere near the paddy field. When the deceased returned from his work site, accused all of a sudden came from the field and gave Farsa blow on his backside and immediately left the spot. This P.W.2 stating to have seen the Farsa blow being given by the accused on the deceased, has stated that when she saw the accused while returning from the spot with Farsa. She saw the deceased to have fallen on the ground. This witness has not been cross-examined on any material aspect of the case. So far as her conduct is concerned, she has clearly stated to have immediately rushed to P.W.1 and stated all those to him. The witness when has been suggested to be stating falsehood has straightway denied the said suggestion. CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} The P.W.3, who is the niece of P.W.1 and the deceased has also stated in the same light as that of P.W.2 that accused holding the Farsa came to their house and she threatening to kill the deceased and when P.W.1 pacified him, he left the place whereafter he having kept himself concealed in the nearby place, when deceased returned from his work site, rushed at him and gave Farsa blow on his back. She appears to be an honest witness and her evidence stand credible when she has stated that she had not seen the accused when he was assaulted and only when he ran away from the spot, she saw him. Her further evidence is that accused ran away from the spot, by carrying Farsa. It has not been brought out from her as well as P.W.2 that besides the accused holding Farsa, there was anyone else who was with him carrying any weapon either a Farsa or any other. Evidence of P.W.5, we find to be in the same vein and to have gone un-impeached. The evidence as discussed, which receive corroboration from the medical evidence through P.W.4, his postmortem report, Ext.3 and his opinion report i.e. Ext.4. 12. On a conspectus of discussion of evidence as hereinabove, we are of the view that the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court against the accused for commission of the offence under section -302 of IPC is well in order and the accused has rightly been convicted thereunder. 13. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th November, 2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Rourkela Camp at Bonai in Sessions Trial No.42/07 of 2010 are hereby confirmed. CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} Since the accused, namely, Rudra Charan Naik is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to serve out the sentence. G. Satapathy, J. I Agree. Narayan (D. Dash), Judge. (G.Satapathy), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Nov-2023 14:20:41 CRLA NO. 12 OF 2012 Page 8 of 8