The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.224 of 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.44 of 2012. Gopabandhu Pradhan …. Appellant ---- State of Orissa -versus- …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.Jnyanananda Panda (Advocate as Amicus Curiae) For Respondent - Mr.S.K. Nayak (AGA) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY Date of Hearing : 07.12.2023 : Date of Judgment :19.12.2023 The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in D.Dash,J. question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.44 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.230 of 2011 corresponding to Raikia P.S. Case No.49 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), G. Udayagiri. CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 1 of 12 - 2 - The Appellant (accused person) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under sections 302/201 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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC; and undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for commission of the offence under section 201 of the IPC with the stipulation that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 2. Prosecution Case:- This accused (Gopabandhu Pradhan) and Kunjia Pradhan (deceased) hail from the same village, i.e., Sitasuga. The accused was of the belief that the deceased was practicing sorcery in their village. On 11.11.2011 around 5.00 p.m., Brundabati Pradhan (P.W.1), who is the wife of Kunjia (deceased), was informed by one Bijaya Pradhan (P.W.2) about the murder of her husband. So, she came in front of the house of one Mahendra Burgi and saw that the trunk of the body of her husband was lying there. The head and trunk of the body of her husband, being bisected by the CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 2 of 12 - 3 - accused by means of a sharp cutting weapon, the head had been taken away by the accused somewhere-else. In that situation, Brundbati (P.W.1) lodged written report with the Inspector-in- Charge of Raikia P.S. The I.I.C., receiving the written report from P.W.1, treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.5) and upon registration of the case, directed the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.17) to take up the investigation. 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.17) examined the Informant (P.W.1). He (P.W.17), having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.14). The I.O. (P.W.17) then arrested the accused and recorded his statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. While the accused was in custody of the I.O. (P.W.17), he had stated that he had concealed the head of the deceased inside creepers grown on Dalagadu river bed and to have thrown the axe in the said river. He had further disclosed that he would give recovery of the beheaded head and the axe from the place where he had kept the same if he would be taken to that place. The statement of accused Hari was recorded by the I.O. (P.W.17) vide Ext.15. Pursuant to the said statement (Ext.15), all proceeded to the place, being led by the accused and the accused gave recovery of the axe from the river, which has been seized under seizure list (Ext.16). Thereafter, the accused also gave recovery of the chopped head of the deceased CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 3 of 12 - 4 - from the bushy area on the Dalagadu river bank. The bloodstained earth, sample earth, dried blood from the spot were seized by the I.O. (P.W.17) under the seizure list (Ext.1). He (P.W.17) then held inquest over the trunk portion of deceased, chopped head of deceased together and trunk and chopped head of deceased and prepared the reports to that effect (Ext.2, 3 & 4) in presence of the witnesses. The trunk and head of the deceased were sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The wearing apparels of all the accused were seized under seizure list (Ext.13). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.17) submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri, 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 offence against these accused persons. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total eighteen (18) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant who happens to be the wife the deceased is P.W.1. P.W.2 is a seizure witness as also a post occurrence witness. CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 4 of 12 - 5 - P.Ws.3 & 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.5, 7, 14 & 15 are the post occurrence witnesses. P.W.6 is the scribe of the F.I.R (Ext.5). The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.8. P.Ws.9 & 13 are the witnesses to the seizure of photographs. The I.O. of the case has come to the witness box as P.W.17. 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 19.
Facts
Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.5); inquest report (Ext.2); the post mortem report (Ext.6) and the spot map (Ext.14). The Chemical Examiner’s report has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.19. Statement of accused Hari has been admitted in evidence as Ext.15. 6. The accused person, having taken the plea of complete denial and false implication, has, however, not tendered any evidence.
Legal Reasoning
Besides the above, we find that the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.18), who, having held the inquest over the dead body, had noted all such injuries indicating with their seats in the inquest report (Ext.2). The other witnesses have also stated that the deceased had been beheaded. CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 7 of 12 - 8 - With such overwhelming evidence on record, which have gone unquestioned, we are left with no option but to concur with the finding that the deceased met homicidal death. 11. In order to address the rival submission and thereby judge the sustainability of the finding of the Trial Court as against the accused to have caused the murder of the deceased, let us proceed to examine the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 first. P.W.3 is a student of Class-X of the Paburia Dayananda High School. He states that on the relevant date around 5.00 p.m., when he was coming home from the school near the culvert of their village, he saw the accused assaulting the deceased by means of an axe on his neck. He further states that having seeing that, out of fear, he left the place and went to his house. He, having been cross-examined, we find no such material have been elicited to discard his version that at the relevant time, he was coming from the school or to be not there near the culvert. He has stated that at the relevant time, he was alone returning from the school as his schoolmates from their village, had not gone to the school on that day, which is a very plausible explanation and removes the doubt from the mind that at that hour when school time got over, as to how P.W.3 not returning alone and not his other friends. Being asked about the knife, he had given further detail that it was having the handle made up of bamboo. For a CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 8 of 12 - 9 - boy of this age of 18 years reading in the school not disclosing about the said fact in the village to others cannot be taken to be an unusual conduct when he asserts to have told the police when he met which is not disproved. He appears to be a truthful witness when he has clearly stated that after seeing the deceased, being given the blow by the accused, he did not know as to what happened thereafter. Thus, we find the evidence of P.W.3 to be wholly believable to the extent that near the culvert, the accused had given the axe blow upon the deceased. Now, comes the evidence of P.W.4. He claims that around that time, on that day, he was on the road of the village and noticed the accused dealing one axe blow on the neck of the deceased, which resulted the fall of the deceased and thereafter he states to have seen the accused dealing another blow on the neck of the deceased, which finally severed the head from the trunk. His further evidence is that thereafter the accused holding the head of the deceased, went away towards the river carrying the axe on his hand. He fairly states to have no knowledge as to why the accused eliminated the deceased in this gruesome manner. He of course has not reported the matter at the P.S. but has told the police in the village when they arrived. This cannot be taken to be an unusual conduct on the part of P.W.4 especially keeping in view the manner in which he says to have seen the happening as in that situation, even a strongminded person is CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 9 of 12 - 10 - bound to lose his mental equilibrium. We having given repeated readings to the deposition of this witness (P.W.4) find even no such minor discrepancy or contradiction or aberration to be taken note of. 12. In addition to this, when we come to the evidence of P.W.5, we find him to have stated as to have seen the accused near the culvert holding the severed head of the deceased and going towards Village-Kurubali. The presence of this witness, at the relevant time, which he has asserted is because of the fact that he was then bringing cattle to the cattle-shed after getting them grazed. The time, being around 5.00 p.m, as has been stated by P.W.5 and other P.Ws., as above discussed, in the rural area, that actually is the time for the cattles to return from the grazing field to the shed. The happening as stated to have been seen before him, he having not been able to say as to what was the handle of the axe with the explanation to that effect that he was then at a distance, the same is of no fatal significance at all. This witness also having not reported the matter at the P.S., is not such implication to doubt his version as in that situation, what he saw, one is bound to be awestruck. 13. P.W.7 has also stated the same thing as to what have been stated by P.W.6 that he had seen the accused holding the severed head of the deceased and carrying an axe going towards Raikia CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 10 of 12 - 11 - side. During cross-examination, although it has been brought out that seeing the accused from close place, he did not ask anything to him, that in the scenario, is absolutely of no significance that no one would ever venture to ask the person, who is carrying the severed human head with blood drops trickling down and an axe on his hand taking grave risk to his life from the hands of that man, who had shown the cruelty to the greatest degree. In addition to that, the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.17) bears importance when he has to stated that the accused being in custody stated to have thrown the axe in the river and to have thrown the head inside the bushes and had led the I.O. (P.W.17) and others first near the river. P.W.17 further states that the accused, reaching near the river, gave recovery of the axe, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.16). it is also his evidence that the accused thereafter took them to bushy area of the river bank brought out the severed head of the deceased which was taken charge of by him. The prosecution has proved through the evidence as above that the beheaded body of the deceased was lying in the village and the post mortem having been made, it has also been proved that the head and trunk are of the same person, which too has been stated the prosecution witnesses to be that of Kunjia. With all these overwhelming evidence on record, which according to us, are wholly reliable, we find absolutely no Page 11 of 12 CRLA No.224 of 2016 - 12 - reason/justification to tinker with the finding of guilt of the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court. 14. In the result, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.44 of 2012 are hereby confirmed. G.Satapathy, J. I Agree. (D. Dash) Judge (G.Satapathy) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 20-Dec-2023 15:59:18 CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 12 of 12
Arguments
7. Mr. J. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 and the Trial Court, without properly scrutinizing their evidence from all possible angles, ought not have placed reliance upon the same. He further submitted that CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 5 of 12 - 6 - the evidence of P.Ws.5 & 7 in the same way, having been just casually gone through, the Trial Court has erroneously accepted their version as gospel truth. In view of all these above, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are impugned in this Appeal, cannot be sustained. 8. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt against the accused person, as has been returned by the Trial Court, submitted that even on a close reading of the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4, no iota of material can be found to be surfacing to disbelieve their version when they have stated every tit bit aspect of the gruesome incident and they have narrated in their natural way. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.5 & 7, being read even without the aid of the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 is enough to fasten the guilt upon the accused. With the above, the prosecution when has also proved the motive by leading clear, cogent and acceptable evidence and there comes no explanation from the side of the accused for which the conviction has to stand. 9. 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 CRLA No.224 of 2016 Page 6 of 12 - 7 - (P.W.1 to P.W.18) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.19. 10. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.8), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is very clear on the point that he had noticed six lacerated injuries over the dead body of the deceased; one over right side of nose towards right angle of mandible; second over right temporal area of head; third over right temporopaleital area of head, forth over occipital area; fifth over right parietal area of head; sixth over parieto temporal area of left side. As per his evidence, these injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause the death was on account of complete bisection of head from the trunk. On dissection, he found the stomach was intact but contained 300 ml of digested food without any characterstic smell; subdural haemorrhage and subarachnoid heamorrhage present in both hemisphere; fracture of cervical vertebra at C-2 level; and other internal organs were intact but congested in variable degree.