The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.12 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 the order of sentence dated 29th January, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.55 of 2012. Kamal Lochan Paraja ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode) For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Gopal Krishna Nayak (Advocate) For Respondent - Mr.S.N.Das Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY Date of Hearing : 01.12.2023 : Date of Judgment :19.12.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29th January, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.55 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.679 of 2011 corresponding to Koraput Sadar JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 1 of 8 - 2 - P.S. Case No.679 of 2011 of the Court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Koraput. 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 for commission of the said offence. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 03.12.2011, Daya Gouda, who happens to be the elder brother of the Informant, namely, Bhagaban Gouda (P.W.8) had gone to the Village-Karanjiguda to work as a labourer. He, however, did not return. On the next day, during morning hour, Bhagaban (P.W.8) with the wife of the deceased, namely, Hiramani Gouda (P.W.4) and other villagers went in search of Daya. They found him (Daya) lying with bleeding injury on his head at one end of the village. Daya, in that condition, told that while he was returning from Village-Karanjiguda, on the way, around 10.00 p.m., the accused, who was in front of his house, picked up quarrel with him and assaulted him by means of an axe on his head and then threw him on the threshing floor. The injured then was taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Koraput for treatment, but he met his death there. Bhagaban (Informant-P.W.8) then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge of Koraput Sadar P.S.. The IIC, treating the JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 2 of 8 - 3 - same as FIR (Ext.1), registered the case and directed Sub- Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.13) to take up investigation. 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.13) examined the Informant (P.W.8) and recorded his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Having visited the spot, the I.O. (P.W.13) held the inquest over the dead body of Daya and prepared the report (Ext.2) and sent the same for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.13) seized the sample earth and blood stained earth under seizure list (Ext.3). It was stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement, the accused is said to have led the I.O. (P.W.13) and other witnesses in giving recovery of the weapon, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.5). The wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased were seized under seizure list (Ext.6 & Ext.7) respectively. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 4. Learned S.D.J.M., Koraput, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offence and after observing the JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 3 of 8 - 4 - formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total thirteen (13) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant, who happens to the brother of the deceased is P.W.8 whereas P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. P.Ws.5 & 6 are the co- villagers of the deceased. P.W.12 is the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The I.O., at the end has come to the witness box, as P.W.13. 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. Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2); and the post mortem report (Ext.9). The reports of the Chemical Examiner has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.12. 6. The accused, having taken the plea of complete denial and false implication, has, however, not tendered any evidence in support of the same. 7. Mr.G.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that although there are number of the witnesses, who have stated the deceased to have disclosed before them that the accused had been given fatal blow on him, on proper scrutiny of JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 4 of 8 - 5 - their evidence, it would not be safe to rely upon the same in arriving at a finding that the prosecution, through such evidence, has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this connection, he has taken us through the depositions of P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 8 & 10. In view of all these above, it was urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are impugned in this Appeal, are liable to be set aside. 8. Mr.S.N.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt of the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, submitted that the evidence of all the above prosecution witnesses are wholly consistent and there is no variance on the material part as to the deceased disclosing before them that the accused was the author of the injuries received by him. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to 13) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 12. 10. Before going to address the rival submission of the parties, let us have a look at the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.12), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Daya. It is his evidence that he had noticed one lacerated injury at the frontal JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 5 of 8 - 6 - area of the scalp above the hair line going deep into the brain matter associated with fracture of frontal bone of right side. On dissection, he has also detected the corresponding internal injury. The finding has been noted by the Doctor (P.W.12) in his report (Ext.9). It is his evidence that the death of Daya was on account of brain injury, which was ante mortem in nature and can be possible by the axe. Said evidence has not faced challenge. In addition to this, we find the other evidence on record including that of the I.O. (P.W.13), who had seen the deceased with such injury on his head and that has also been noted by the I.O. (P.W.13) during inquest in his report (Ext.2). So, Daya (deceased), having died after receiving the head injuries while undergoing
Decision
treatment, we hold that his death was homicidal in nature. 11. Coming to the complicity of the accused, looking at the FIR (Ext.1) lodged by P.W.8, we find the mention of the factum of disclosure as regards the complicity of the accused by the deceased when P.W.8 and others found him lying in an injured condition while searching for him. P.W.4, who is the wife of the deceased, has stated that when they saw the deceased lying in an injured condition, being asked, he told that the accused assaulted him on his head by means of an axe and threw him on the threshing floor. This witness has assertively stated that her husband was in sense when he was JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 6 of 8 - 7 - admitted in hospital and also the fact that one Pati Gouda had accompanied them to the hospital. P.W.5 has stated in the same vein and has denied the suggestion of the defence that the deceased was not in sense from the beginning. P.W.6 has stated about such disclosure of the deceased made before them in further stating that the accused, being arrested, had given recovery of the axe pursuant to his statement made before the police by leading the police and others including himself to his house, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.6). P.W.8 has reiterated the version of other P.Ws., which we have discussed as regards said disclosure of the deceased, we find the evidence of all these witnesses containing no such discrepancy to be consistent with regard to the disclosure of the deceased before them and that has again been stated by P.W.10. The evidence of all these witnesses, being consistent with one another and as nothing has surfaced to doubt their version in any manner, which also find corroboration from the factum of recovery of axe and its seizure as also from the medical evidence that the injury on the head of the deceased was possible by means of the axe, we are of the considered view that judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, impugned in this Appeal, must receive the seal of confirmation. JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 7 of 8 - 8 - With the discussion, as above, we hold that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for committing the murder of Daya. 12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29th January, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.55 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 JCRLA No.12 of 2013 Page 8 of 8