The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.49 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 the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011. Priyanka Jha @ Devi …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mrs.Sonita Biswal, B.R.Dalai & M. Das (Advocates) For Respondent - Mr.S.K. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023 : Date of Judgment:03.10.2023 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 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011 arising JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 1 of 11 - 2 - out of G.R. Case No.1975 of 2010 corresponding to Biramitrapur P.S. Case No.117 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Panposh. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, she has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution Case:- This accused had married one Rajhesh Kumar Jha (informant-P.W.1) of Village-Patalkand under Biramitrapur Police Station (P.S.) in the district of Sundergarh. The marriage between them had taken place on 20.06.2010. On 27.12.2010, it was around 12.30 p.m., Rajesh (informant-P.W.1) came to his house after work for taking lunch. The accused then told Rajesh (P.W.1) that the food had not been prepared. Rajesh, therefore, asking the accused to feed his mother when the food would be ready, left the house. He again returned around 2.00 p.m. Then he found the doors of the house to have been locked from inside and the Television was on with full sound. He then asked the accused to open the door. The doors of the house, being opened by the accused, Rajesh (P.W.1), entering therein decreased the volume of the TV. He then went to the inner courtyard for having wash. There he found there his mother, namely, Sita Devi with injuries JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 2 of 11 - 3 - in a pool of blood. Accused being immediately asked by Rajesh (P.W.1) gave evasive replies. Going closer to the place where Sita Devi was lying dead, Rajesh (P.W.1) found that slit on the wind pipe of his mother and there were also marks of injuries on her face and other parts of the body. Rajesh (P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Sub- Inspector (S.I.) of Police, who was then in-Charge of Inspector-in- Charge of Biramitra P.S. Receiving the said written report from
Legal Reasoning
P.W.1, the S.I. of Police (P.W.14), treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation. 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.14) examined the Informant (P.W.1). He visited the spot and finding people to have gathered there, he examined some of them. The accused, being there in the house, was arrested. Inquest was conducted by the I.O. (P.W.14) over the dead body of the Sita in presence of witnesses and report to that effect (Ext.4) was prepared. The dead body then sent for post mortem examination. The I.O. (P.W.14) also seized some incriminating articles such as bloodstained earth, sample earth, broken bangles etc. from the backyard of the house of P.W.1 under seizure list (Ext.8). He also seized the wearing apparels of the accused under seizure list (Ext.5). It was stated that on 28.12.2010, the accused, while in police custody, disclosed to have concealed one Paniki JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 3 of 11 - 4 - (vegetable cutter) and chopper underneath a chair kept in the house. She further stated that she would give recovery of the same if taken to that place. The statement of the accused was recorded under Ext.2 in presence of witnesses (P.W.2) and another. It was said that the accused, pursuant to that statement, led the I.O. (P.W.14) and witnesses to her house and gave recovery of the Paniki and chopper from the underneath a chair, which was lying there in a small room on the back side. The Paniki and chopper were seized under seizure list (Ext.3). The accused was also medically examined. The wearing apparels of the deceased were seized on production by the police personnel, who had accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination. The incriminating articles were also sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation, submitted the Final Form placing the 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 offence 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 the accused. JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 4 of 11 - 5 - 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total fourteen (14) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant, who is the husband of the accused, had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 7 & 8 are the neighbors. Witnesses to the inquest are P.Ws.4 & 6. P.Ws.9 & 11 are the witnesses to the seizure of the incriminating articles. The Doctor who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Sita Devi is P.W.10 whereas the Doctor, who had medically examined the accused is P.Ws.12. The I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box as P.W.14. 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 13. Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.4); and the post mortem report. The disclosure statement of the accused had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.2 and the Chemical Examiner’s report is Ext.13. 6. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial. It was specifically stated that she was being ignored and ill-treated by her husband (P.W.1) and on that day, her husband and mother- in-law had assaulted her and when her mother-in-law wanted to attack her by means of a knife, in the scuffle, she fell down and JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 5 of 11 - 6 - her left leg hit the deceased and the knife somehow stuck at her neck. 7. The Trial Court, on examination of the evidence and their scrutiny, has found that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Reasoning
8. Mr.M.Das, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), without dispute the nature of death of Sita Devi to be homicidal, submitted that the prosecution evidence is not enough to conclude that the chain of events are complete in every respect to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused, who is the perpetrator of the crime by ruling out all the hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. He submitted that the Trial Court ought not to have placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.1 to conclude that at the relevant time, when he found the deceased lying dead in the inner court yard of the house, it was only the accused who was present in the house, which was closed form inside, which she had opened. He further submitted that such evidence of P.W.1 appears to be highly improbable when it is said that the accused, having committed the murder, would very much remain present to be arrested in connection with the case. Placing the deposition of P.W.1 and his FIR version, in view of some variance as regards the stated previous visit by P.W.1 and the subsequent visit, he contended that the prosecution case is JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 6 of 11 - 7 - doubtful. He, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are liable to be set aside. 9. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court. He submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, being wholly reliable to the extent that when he returned home, he found the doors of the house to have been bolted from inside and being called out when the accused opened the door, soon thereafter he saw his mother lying dead in the court yard, the rest of the things as to how the deceased sustained injuries and met her death being within the special knowledge of this accused since the given explanations appear to be totally false, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for having committed the murder of her mother-in-law Sita Devi. 10. 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 14) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13. 11. As has been stated by the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he had noticed in Page 7 of 11 JCRLA No.49 of 2012 - 8 - total twelve (12) injuries on the body of the deceased and out of those, nine (9) were cut injuries. It is his evidence that all such injuries were ante mortem in nature. He has further stated that the cut injuries on the neck had proved fatal and the death was on account of shock as a result of blood loss due to the injury to the major vessel like carotid. All such findings have been recorded in his report (Ext.6). He has clearly denied that such injuries can appear if a person would defend himself/herself in a scuffle with the weapon in the hands of the attacker. With such evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10) coupled with the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14), who had noticed the injuries seen on the deceased in his report (Ext.4) and that of P.W.1 and others we are left with no option but to conclude that death of Sita Devi was homicidal. 12. The prosecution case is not based on direct evidence. In order to bring home charge against the accused, the prosecution has proved certain circumstances by examining P.W.1 and others. 13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, we find him to have stated that he had once come to the house during noon hours and as then the accused told him that food was not ready, he went away without taking the lunch and while going away, directed the accused to feed his mother once the meal was ready. It is his further evidence that around 2.00 p.m., he returned for lunch and when eh arrived, he knocked at the doors vigorously when the JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 8 of 11 - 9 - television set was running in full volume. He has further stated that knocks were not responded and, therefore, he turned around the house and by going to the backside, called his wife (accused) to open the door. It has been further stated that thereafter when he came to front door, the accused opened the door and he immediately went and decrees the sound of the television. It has been further stated by P.W.1 that when he went to the inner courtyard to have a wash, he found his mother lying on the ground in a pool of blood and then the accused being asked about it, she remained silent and thereafter disclosed to have killed his mother-in-law. It is also his evidence that he had seen the wind pipe of her mother to have been completely cut. The witness, having been cross-examined, has stated that his wife and mother (deceased), were having separate hearth and they were preparing their food separately. He has denied the suggestion thrown during cross-examination that when he and his mother (deceased) were trying to kill the accused by means of a knife and that during scuffle, the knife somehow touched the throat of her mother in causing such injury. Although such a suggestion has been given, no such supporting material appears to have been elicited from the lips of P.W.1 even remotely suggestive of such happening in the house. This P.W.1 has thereafter lodged the FIR (Ext.1). The FIR narration reveals that when this P.W.1 arrived in the house around 2.00 p.m, he knocked the door and as nobody JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 9 of 11 - 10 - opened, the went towards backside and found his wife (accused) standing on the backside door and then she opened the door giving an entry to the accused to the house. It is also stated that thereafter he found his mother (deceased) lying therein in a pool of blood with her throat being cut and when asked the accused, she gave evasive answer and, therefore, he apprehended that his mother had been murdered by this accused. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the FIR version that when he arrived at home, the doors were closed and finally the accused when opened the door after some time, he saw his mother (deceased) lying in a pool of blood on the backside of the house. The rest part of his evidence that the accused confessed to have committed the murder of the deceased is, however, not stated in the FIR and, therefore, the extra judicial confession of the accused as deposed to by P.W.1 in the Trial appears to be an introduction. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.1 is acceptable on the score that at the relevant time when he detected the dead body of his mother, the accused alone was in the house. The explanation given by the accused is that there was an attempt to his life by the accused and the deceased and in that scuffle, the deceased has received such injuries is not at all acceptable when the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.12) is gone through and the conduct of the accused is viewed. It has not only been stated by P.W.1 that the accused and the deceased were not pulling on well, but the same has been the JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 10 of 11 - 11 - evidence of P.W.7 that the accused and her mother-in-law were not in good terms. Thus, here we find the prosecution to have established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was very much in the house when the deceased was found lying dead with cut injury on her throat and several other injuries on her body. The explanation, as has been provided by the accused, is found to be unacceptable and, therefore, basing on such evidence, we are of the view that the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court for having murdered her mother-in-law (Sita Devi) has to sustain. 14.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011 are hereby confirmed. Since the Appellant (accused), namely, Priyanka Jha @ Devi is on bail, she is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to serve out the sentence. A.C.Behera, J. I Agree. (D. Dash) Judge (A.C.Behera) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Oct-2023 10:34:26 JCRLA No.49 of 2012 Page 11 of 11