The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.216 of 2014 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 26th June, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No.54/180 of 2011. Panda Hembram @ Singh & Another -versus- …. Appellants State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): - For Appellants Mr.Dharanidhar Nayak, For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate. Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
witnesses and the Informant (P.W.1), we find that she stated that the accused Panda Hembram assaulted her husband by means of a crowbar on the belly and head and other two assaulted by lathis. P.W.11, the daughter of P.W.1 and the deceased has stated that accused Panda was armed with crowbar and the other two were having lathis with them and they assaulted her father for which he died. It reveals from the evidence on record that there was no such long standing enmity between the parties. The parties are members of Scheduled Tribe and hail from rural background and judicial notice of the fact can be taken that they run with high temper and at times in silly matters behave abnormally and unexpectedly. 14. Taking a cumulative view of all these above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the offence CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 8 of 9 {{ 9 }} could be properly categorized as one punishable under section 304 Part-I of the IPC. We are thus of the considered opinion that for the role played and act done by the accused persons, they would be liable for conviction under section 304 Part-I/34 of the IPC. 15. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the accused persons is altered to one under section 304 Part-I/34 of the IPC and accordingly, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. 16. With the above modification as to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appeal stands
Arguments
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Date of Hearing : 25.01.2024 :: Date of Judgment: 08.02.2024 D.Dash, J. The Appellants, in this Appeal, have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th June, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No.54/180 of 2011, corresponding to Khaira P.S. Case No.55 of 2011 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Soro. CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of six months each. 2. Prosecution case is that on 03.04.2011 accused Panda Hembram having beaten the goats of Gurubari, who is the daughter of Raimani (Informant-P.W.1) while grazing around 7 a.m., he brought those goats to their house alleging that they had eaten 5 kgs of rice in his house. Gurubari when protested, the accused assaulted her. She fell down on the ground sustaining injury on her head. Ramesh Singh, the son-in-law of Raimani (Informant-P.W.1) subsided the matter. It is stated that around 10 p.m. Ratnakar Singh, the husband of the Informant was sleeping on his front verandha when Raimani (P.W.1-Informant) was also sitting nearby. The accused Panda Hembram then arrived holding a crowbar whereas accused Kalia and another (X), a Juvenile-in-Conflict with Law (J.C.L.) also came there holding Sala lathis. It is stated that they assaulted Ratnakar. When accused Panda Hembram assaulted on his head and chest by means of crowbar, CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} Ratnakar died instantly. Hearing the hulla when Ramesh Singh arrived, the accused persons left the spot. 3. On the next day, the wife of the deceased, namely, Raimani Singh (P.W.1) presented a written report with the Officer-in-Charge (O.I.C. P.W.10), Khaira Police Station in the District of Balasore. The O.I.C. receiving the said report (Ext.1), treated the same as FIR and upon registration of the case, take up investigation. 4. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.10) then examined the Informant (P.W.1) and visited the spot. He then prepared the spot map (Ext.9) and examined other witnesses there at the spot and nearby. Having seen the dead body of Ratnakar lying on the verandah of their house in the village, he held inquest over the same in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report (Ext.2). The dead body then was sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The I.O. (P.W.10) seized the incriminating articles including the wearing apparels of the deceased under seizure list (Ext.3). The accused persons were apprehended and then being taken to custody, stated to given the recovery of the crowbar if taken to the place where it had been kept by him. Accordingly, the statement of the accused was recorded under Ext.10 and the accused CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} then led the police and other witnesses including this P.W.10 in giving recovery of that crowbar from the place of concealment wherefrom the crowbar was recovered. That recovered crowbar was seized under seizure list (Ext.5). The incriminating articles too were sent for chemical examination through court. On completion of investigation, the I.O (P.W.10) submitted the Final Form placing the accused persons to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302/24 of the IPC. 5. Learned J.M.F.C., Soro on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC 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 said offence against the accused. 6. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined twelve (12) witnesses. Out of whom, as already stated, the Informant is the wife of the deceased and she had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.W.2 is the scribe of the F.I.R. P.W.3 is the nephew of P.W.1 and cousin of the accused persons. P.Ws.4 and 11 are the son-in-law and daughter of P.W.1. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the witnesses to the circumstance. The Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} body of the deceased, is P.W.9 whereas the Investigating Officer has come to the witness box as P.W.10. 7. Besides leading the evidence by examining above the witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.11. Out of those, the important are the FIR, Ext.1; spot map Ext.9. The inquest report and post mortem examination report are Ext.2 and Ext.6 respectively. The statement of the accused persons pursuant to which the I.O. (P.W.10) and others had gone to the place and crowbar was recovered, has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.10 and the relevant seizure list is Ext.7 whereas the report of the Medical Officer has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.11/2. 8. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial and false implication. From the side of the defence, the accused examined himself as D.W.1. 9. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence let in by the prosecution and their evaluation has come to a conclusion that the homicidal death of Ratnakar Singh (deceased) was because of infliction of blows by means of crowbar by the accused persons. The accused persons have, therefore, been convicted for intentionally causing the death CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} of Ratnakar Singh in furtherance of their common intention. Accordingly, they have been sentenced as stated above. 10. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants (accused) from the beginning instead of questioning the finding of guilt of the accused persons as has been returned by the Trial Court in holding them to be the author of the injuries which were received by the deceased, submitted that the circumstances surrounding the incident, those which had taken place before and the subsequent events, the relationship, the number of blows given after some altercation with their seats and further the fact the parties hail from rural background whose tamper usually run high and behavior at times for silly reasons becomes abnormal and unexpected are cumulatively viewed, the accused persons ought to be held liable for commission of offence under section 304-I/34 of the IPC. He, thus confined his submission for alteration of conviction for commission of offence under section 304-1/34 of the IPC from section 302/34 of the IPC and accordingly, he urged for appropriate reduction of the sentence. 11. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted all in favour of the finding of the Trial Court that the accused is liable for committing the CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} offence under section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that for the role played and the act done by these accused persons in inflicting the injuries upon the deceased by means of crowbar, the Trial Court is right in holding the accused guilty for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC 12. 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 (P.W.1 to P.W.12) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.11. 13. In order to address the rival submission confined to the question of altercation of conviction and appropriate reduction of sentence, if any, first of all let us have a glance at the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.9), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Ratnakar. It is his evidence that during post mortem examination, he had found contusion of the interior of the right thigh, contusion over posterior surface right elbow joint, laceration over right chest around nipple, laceration over left chest below the nipple and laceration over occipital area of scalp. Having noted all these five CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} internal injuries, P.W.9 has categorically stated that the cause of death was due to massive internal bleeding due to rupture of spleen. From the evidence of P.W.9, it is well inferable that there runs the nexus of the rupture of spleen leading to massive internal bleeding with the laceration over the right chest around nipple and left chest below the nipple. Next, when we come to the evidence of the eye-
Decision
disposed of. (D. Dash), Judge. (G. Satapathy), Judge. G. Satapathy, J. Himansu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Feb-2024 15:54:07 CRLA No.216 of 2014 Page 9 of 9