The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.506 of 2017 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 27th June, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in Criminal Trial Case No.51 of 2015. ---- Sundra @ Chandra Pujari …. Appellant -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.P.K. Nanda, Advocate For Respondent - Mr.Sitikant Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K.PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing :02.05.2023 : Date of Judgment:19.05.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27th June, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in Criminal Trial Case No.51 of 2015, arising out of G.R Case No.390 of 2014, corresponding to Mathili P.S Case No.83 of 2014 of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Malkangiri. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo CRLA No.506 of 2017 Page 1 of 8 {{ 2 }} imprisonment for life and pay of fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) with the default stipulation to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 2. Prosecution case is that on 19.10.2014, around 10.00 a.m., the accused was cutting one tree, which was standing on the land of Damu Guruteli. Seeing the same, Damu came forward to protest the said cutting of the tree by the accused and said that he having told the accused not to cut the tree why he did so. At this, the accused, being annoyed, dealt three blows on him by means of an axe locally known as ‘Ghagada’. The assault was made on the right side shoulder, cheek and throat of the Damu Guruteli (deceased). The deceased, in view of such assault, received severe bleeding injuries and died at the spot. The wife of the deceased, namely, Pana Guruteli, then out of fear, left the spot. She then informed the matter to the villager, who on their arrival found Damu lying dead with the bleeding injuries. The wife of the deceased (informant-P.W.1) then lodged a written report with the Officer in Charge (O.I.C) of the Govindpalli Police Outpost, who entered the said fact in the Stain Diary book maintained in that Police Outpost and sent the report to the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Mathili Police Station. In the absence of the I.I.C., the Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I) present at the P.S. immediately registered the case and took up the investigation. 3. In course of investigation, the Investigation Officer (I.O.-P.W.12) examined the informant and other witnesses. He proceeded to the spot and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He also prepared the inquest report (Ext.1) and sent the dead body of the deceased for CRLA No506 of 2017 Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. After that, the wearing apparels of the deceased were seized. The accused, being arrested, gave his statement and pursuant to the same, led the I.O. and others to the place where he had kept that Ghagada. He then gave recovery of the same as well as his wearing apparels to the I.O. (P.W.12), which were seized under seizure lists. The accused was also medically examined. This P.W.12 then, having received the order of transfer, handed over the charge of investigation of the case to another S.I. of Police (P.W.11) attached to Mathili P.S., who carried out further investigation and on completion of the investigation, submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC. 4. On receipt of the above Final Form, learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge against the accused. 5. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined thirteen (13) witnesses. Out of them, as already stated, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and the informant of the case. P.Ws.2, 3 & 4 are the witnesses to the inquest whereas P.Ws.4 & 5 are the witnesses to the seizure of the Ghagada. P.Ws.7 & 8 are two independent post occurrence witnesses. The Home guards, who had escorted the dead body of the deceased are P.Ws.9 & 10. The I.O., who from the beginning, was investigating the case having been examined as P.W.12, the next Investigating Officer is P.W.11. CRLA No506 of 2017 Page 3 of 8 {{ 4 }} 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 11. Out of those, the FIR (Ext.8), the post mortem report (Ext.11) and the statement of the accused said to have been recorded when he was under the custody of the police has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.2. 6. The defence plea is that of complete denial and false implication. No evidence has, however, been tendered by the accused in support of his plea. 7. The Trial Court, on the basis of the available evidence, having concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has gone to discuss the evidence let in by the prosecution as regards the complicity of the accused in causing the injuries upon the deceased leading to his death. Then the Trial Court, has found the obtained evidence as sufficient to establish the charge against the accused by and has held the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 8. The Doctor, who had conducted the Trial Court autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.13. It is his evidence that while holding the post mortem examination, he had noticed that the right hand of the deceased was separated from the body and hanging on the shoulder joint which he has noted in his report (Ext.11). It has been stated by him that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were an ante mortem in nature and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The I.O. (P.W.12), who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared his report (Ext.1), has Page 4 of 8 CRLA No506 of 2017 {{ 5 }} also noted the injuries on the person of the deceased and he has reflected all those in the said inquest report. The other witnesses have also stated to have seen the deceased with severe injuries on his body. In fact, this aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that is also the situation before us. With the available evidence on record, which have remained unchallenged, we find absolutely no difficulty in concurring with the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and, therefore, the conclusion returned by the Trial Court has no leg to stand. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, who happens to the wife of the deceased and the informant ought not to have been so readily accepted without putting it under critical examination. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, being not of sterling quality, the Trial Court committed error in holding her to be the truthful witness and as such, her version as wholly reliable. He contended that when the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of recovery of “Ghagada” at the instance of the accused pursuant to his statement while in police custody through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence and as that is not standing to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, the finding returned by the Trial Court that the accused is the author of the injuries caused on the deceased, which have led to his death is not sustainable. 10. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent (State) submitted all in favour of the finding returned by the Trial court holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 302 of CRLA No506 of 2017 Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} the IPC in intentionally causing the death of Damu. He further submitted that P.W.1, who happens to be wife of the deceased is the eye witness to the occurrence and her evidence has not at all been shaken despite cross- examination. According to him, the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence when cannot be doubted as there is no material in that regard, her version that the accused inflicted injuries upon the deceased on being simply asked him as to why he was cutting the tree has been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court. 11. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also gone through the depositions of all the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to 11 from the side of the prosecution. 12. The case of the prosecution is based upon the direct evidence of P.W.1. This P.W.1, who happens to be wife of the deceased and is also the informant, who had lodged the FIR, which has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.8. The version in the FIR is that when the deceased asked the accused as to why he was cutting the tree despite his earlier request not to do so, the accused, all of a sudden, abused and came rushing at the deceased. It has been stated in the FIR that thereafter the accused dealt those fatal blows upon the deceased, which caused his death instantaneously. During Trial, it has been stated by P.W.1 that she with her husband had been to the jungle to look after the cultivation work it was then found that the accused was cutting the tree. She has stated that seeing the accused cutting the tree, when her husband (deceased) protested, the accused, questioned as to if it was his father’s CRLA No506 of 2017 Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} tree (TOO BAPARA GACHA) and immediately dealt blow on the neck of the deceased by means of Ghagada, a sharp cutting weapon. It has also been stated that thereafter the accused gave further blows by means of that Ghagada, which led to the death of the deceased. This witness has clearly stated that there was prior enmity between the accused and the deceased and their lands situate side by side. The evidence of P.W.1 is that she had gone with the deceased to the place of occurrence and was present there when the incident took place and she, out of fear, came to the village after the deceased fell on the ground receiving the severe blows has not been shaken in any manner. No such features have also been elicited from her so as to doubt her presence in seeing the incident. 13. It is the settled position of law that the solitary testimony of a witness can form the basis of conviction provided the evidence of that witness is of sterling quality and the same is free from any infirmities to cast any doubt on his/her testimony. The Court when finds the witness to be truthful and his/her version to be free from any such suspicious circumstance can safely proceed to accept the same in fastening the guilt upon the accused. 14. In the given case, we find no such material on record to say that it would be unsafe to rely upon the version of P.W.1. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 is also receiving corroboration from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.13), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased as he has stated that Ghagada, which is a sharp cutting weapon when used in giving the blow, the injuries which he noticed on the person of the deceased are possible. CRLA No506 of 2017 Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} 15. With such state of affair in the evidence, even without further touching upon the evidence as to the recovery of the Ghagada pursuant to the statement of the accused while in police custody in leading the police and other witnesses to the place in giving recovery of the same, we are of the considered view that the finding of conviction of the accused for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC, as has been rendered by the Trial Court is well in order. 16. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th June, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in Criminal Trial Case No.51 of 2015 are hereby confirmed. Dr.S.K.Panigrahi,J. I Agree. (D. Dash), Judge. (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi), Judge. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-May-2023 15:20:37 CRLA No506 of 2017 Page 8 of 8