The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.15 OF 2013 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 21st August, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.116/55 of 2010. ---- Bandhu Oram …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ====================================================== For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Ms. S. Soren, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr.G.N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :30.10.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.11.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.116/55 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.876 of 2010 JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} corresponding to Bisra P.S. Case No.41 of 2010 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (S.D.J.M.), Panposh. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of the said offence. 2. Prosecution case is that Dugi Oram, Informant (P.W.8) was living with her son Rabindra Oram. Dugi Oram, Informant (P.W.8) had married Bandhu Oram (accused) in the year, 1971. After the birth of Rabindra, this accused Bandhu left Dugi and married another lady in the year, 1974. So, when Dugi thereafter married Turia and she (Dugi), Turia, her son Rabindra resided together. Rabindra was quarreling with Bandhu. On 25.05.2010 afternoon, Rabindra had gone to Sarubahal village to witness Yatra and he did not return. Dugi thereafter got the information that her first husband Bandhu (accused) had killed Rabindra by shooting arrow at him. Dugi then lodged a written report before the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC), Bisra Police Station on 29.05.2010. JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} Receiving the said report, the IIC treated the same as the FIR (Ext.5) and registering the case, directed one Sub- Inspector (SI) of Police (P.W.16) to take up the investigation, subsequently; the S.I. of Police (P.W.15) took up the investigation and completed the same. 3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.16), having examined the informant (P.W.8) and other witnesses, visited the spot, seized the blood stained earth, sample earth, seized bow and arrow from the possession of the accused, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.8). The wearing apparels of the accused were seized under seizure list (Ext.2). The dead body of the deceased was the sent for postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.16) further seized the nail clippings, sample blood of accused. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.15) 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., Panposh, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offences and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} 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 sixteen (16) witnesses. As already stated, the informant-mother of the deceased, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.5) is P.W.8. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of the Informant and accused, P.W. 3 is the uncle of the deceased, who had gone with the deceased for witnessing the Yatra, P.Ws. 4 and 6 were the police Constables of Bisra P.S. are the witnesses to the seizure witness of the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the witnesses to the inquest report, P.Ws.9 and 11 are the witnesses to the seizure of bow and arrow. P.W.10 is a witness to the seizure of blood stained earth and sample earth. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, is P.W.1 whereas the two I.Os. of the case have come to the witness box as P.W.15 and 16. 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 12. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.5); inquest report (Ext.8); the spot map, Ext.12; the post mortem report (Ext.1). JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} 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, having gone through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.1), while conducting the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased had found one stab injury of 3cm x 1.5cm x 5cm which bluish margin on the lateral side of the right knee joint. His evidence is that the death the deceased- Rabindra Oram was due to that stab injury which was homicidal in nature. 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.8, which finds mention that the deceased had sustained 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. 8. Ms. S. Soren, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), from very beginning, instead of attacking the finding as to the authorship of the injuries upon the deceased attributed to the accused as has been recorded by the Trial Court, confined her submission on the question of alteration of the conviction of the accused to one under section 304-I of JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} the IPC with appropriate reduction of sentence. According to her, 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 302 of the IPC. He, therefore, urged for alteration of conviction for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC to offence under Section 304-I of the IPC and accordingly, she contended that the accused be visited with the sentence as deemed appropriate for the said offence. 9. Mr.G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted all in 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 injury having been received by the deceased by the shooting of the arrow, which has proved fatal in causing the death, the Trial Court did commit no mistake in holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} 10. 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 16 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 12. 11. Proceeding to address the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant as regards the alteration of conviction to one under section-304-I of the IPC, and appropriate reduction of the sentence, we find from the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.1, who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased that he had found one stab injury of 3cm x 1.5cm x 5cm with bluish margin on the lateral side of right knee joint. It is his evidence that death was on account of said injury. As per the evidence of P.W.3, he with Rabindra had gone to witness Yatra and there they found accused standing near his house holding arrow and axe. When P.W.3 paid his respect to the accused, he was threatened by the accused and told not to come with Rabindra, who was his arch-enemy. This P.W.3 further states that accused having said so, aimed arrow towards the deceased and some time thereafter he heard shout of the deceased that arrow had hit him. JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} P.W.2, the wife of the deceased states to have seen the only injury on the thigh of her husband and that has also been the evidence of P.W.8, the Informant. The deceased had sustained a bleeding injury on his leg. The incident having taken place on 29.05.2010 evening, the postmortem examination has been conducted on 30.05.2010. It appears that the death is on account of severe bleeding remaining unchecked on account of stab injury on the right knee joint of the deceased or on account of septicemia spreading at a rapid speed. No such evidence is forthcoming to show that there was any prior planning for the incident. Accepting that the accused is the author of the injury in order to ascertain the intention of the accused, the seat of injury as noted here is of significance. The parties hail from rural background and they mostly run with high temper showing abnormal and unexpected behavior in silly matters. 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 304-I of IPC. Accordingly, JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 8 of 9 {{ 9 }} the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. 12. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part with the above modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated sentence dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.116/55 of 2010. Mr. G. Satapathy, J. I Agree. (D. Dash), Judge. (G. Satapathy), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Nov-2023 14:20:42 JCRLA No.15 of 2013 Page 9 of 9