The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.243 of 1995 Purna Chandra Pradhan & Anr. ..... Appellants Mr. B.C. Parija, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha ..... Respondent Mr. S.P. Das, ASC THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 07.12.2024 Order No. 10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B.C. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 16/39/660 of 1995/1994 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1107/1993 in the file of learned SDJM, Khurda. 4. It is contended that basing on the report submitted by the Grama Rakhi before the Officer-in-charge, Bolgarh P.S. on 15.11.1993, U.D. Case No. 2/1993 was registered and investigation was taken up. 4.1. In course of investigation an F.I.R. was drawn up by P.W. 3 alleging commission of offence against all the Appellants for the offences under Sec. 302/201 r.w. Sec. 34 of the I.P.C.. It is Page 1 of 5. contended that after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sec. 302 & Sec. 201/511 I.P.C. and after commitment of the matter, charge was framed against all the accused persons under Sec. 302, 201 & 511 of the I.P.C.. 4.2. It is contended that the prosecution in order to prove the charge examined as many as 7 nos. of witnesses. Out of those 7 P.Ws who were examined, P.W. 3 is the informant as well as the I.O. of the case. P.W. 7 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that taking into account the evidence laid by the prosecution, charge framed under Sec. 302 I.P.C. could not be proved against the Appellants and learned court below convicted the Appellants for the offences under Sec. 201 r.w. Sec. 511 of I.P.C.. While convicting the Appellants under the aforesaid offences, learned Sessions Judge sentenced all the Appellants to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 & ½ years each with immediate effect. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that since allegation of 302 I.P.C. could not be proved basing on the evidence laid by the prosecution, while convicting and sentencing the Appellants under Sec. 201 r.w. Section 511 I.P.C., Appellants should have been extended with the benefit of their release under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders’ Act, 1958 and/or the provisions contained under Sec. 360 of the Cr.P.C.. 4.5. It is contended that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem categorically in his cross-examination indicated that there was no Page 2 of 5. external injury on the neck and the cause of death is due to applying pressure on the carotid plexus. 4.6. It is also contended that no eye witnesses were examined to prove the commission of offence against the Appellants for the offences under Sec. 201/511 of the I.P.C.. It is accordingly contended that since allegation of the offence under Sec. 302 could not be proved while convicting the Appellants for the offences under Sec. 201/511 of the I.P.C., benefit of release under the Probation of the Offenders’ Act, 1958 should have been extended in favour of the Appellants. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand placing reliance on the evidence laid by the prosecution contended that the present Appellants and the deceased were staying under a common roof and the Appellants tried to cremate the dead body of the deceased without intimating the same to the local police. Therefore, conduct of the Appellants in disposing the dead body of the deceased without intimating the police is not out of suspicion and their involvement in the alleged offence. 5.1. It is also contended that since prosecution could not prove the allegation of the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C., taking into account the conduct of the Appellants in trying to dispose of the dead body without intimating the police, learned court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellants for the offences under Sec. 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 5.2. It is contended that I.O. of the case who was examined as P.W. 3 clearly supported the prosecution allegation. P.W. 7 who happens Page 3 of 5. to be the doctor doing the post-mortem also found injuries which are antemortem in nature. It is accordingly contended that basing on the evidence laid by the prosecution and the materials available on record, even though Appellants were not found guilty for the offences under Sec. 302 I.P.C., but they have been rightly convicted and sentenced under Sec. 201/511 of the I.P.C., which requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased, initially basing on the report submitted by Grama Rakhi, an U.D. Case was registered in U.D. Case No. 2/1993. But in course of investigation and basing on the report submitted by P.W. 3, the case was registered under Sec. 302/201 r.w. Sec. 34 of the I.P.C.. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed under Sec. 302/201 and 511 of I.P.C. and all the Appellants were charged accordingly and faced the trial. 6.1. As found from the record prosecution failed to prove the allegation of offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. against the Appellants. However, this Court taking into account the materials available on record and the evidence laid by the prosecution witnesses finds that Appellants tried to dispose of the dead body of the deceased without intimating the same to the local police or even without conducting the post mortem of the deceased. 6.2. In view of the materials available on record, tis Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1993 and in the Page 4 of 5. meantime more than 31 years have passed, taking into account the conduct of the Appellants and their age at present, this Court directs for release of the Appellants under the provisions of Probation of Offenders’ Act. This Court directs the Appellants to appear before the Court in seisin within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Learned court in seisin is directed to do the needful in terms of the provisions contained under the P.O. Act. 7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Dec-2024 16:32:35 Page 5 of 5.