The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.142 of 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.50 of 2013 (SESSIONS)(T). Ajit Kumar Rajguru …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.Manas Chand (Advocate)
Legal Reasoning
11. There is no dispute as to the nature of death of Sandhyarani as homicidal. This has been deposed to by the Doctor (P.W.13), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. During post mortem examination, he had noticed two lacerated wounds on left side of frontal bone of the scalp and below the left eye. Besides the above, he had also noted nine cut mark on different parts of the body as also the fracture of little figure of right hand. It is his evidence that all such injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death was on account of intracranial haemorrhage and its complications. The defence has not even attempted to question the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.13) in any manner. He has also stated to have examined the seized weapon (Katuri) and as per his opinion the injuries, which he had noticed over the dead body of the deceased, were possible by the said weapon. Other witnesses have also stated to have seen the deceased with the injuries and CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 6 of 9 - 7 - the I.O. (P.W.14) too has noted all such injuries in his inquest report (Ext.1/1). The daughter and son of the deceased, who have been examined as P.Ws.9 & 10 respectively, have also deposed to have seen their mother lying with injuries on her head and other parts. 12. Now, coming to the complicity of the accused, we find that the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10. The Trial Court has accepted their version to be clear and cogent and having held those to be trustworthy, has mainly based its finding thereupon. In view of the above, we would now confine our examination to the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10 as we feel that if their evidence even as to the presence of the accused at home at the relevant time is not accepted, any amount of other evidence available on record, would not be enough to conclude that the accused is the author of the injuries received by the deceased. 13. Admittedly, the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused where the deceased and P.Ws.9 & 10 were residing. It has been stated by P.W.9 that the occurrence took place in the night and it was around 2.00 a.m. She has stated that when she was sleeping with her mother (deceased) and brother (P.W.10), she saw the accused moving in the house and then, after hearing the shout of her mother, she got up and saw the accused assaulting her mother by Bhujali by dragging the tuft of her hair. CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 7 of 9 - 8 - It has also been stated by her that the accused was assaulting her mother on her head, face and chest when her brother (P.W.10) had also got up and immediately, informed their maternal grandparents and uncle. She has denied to have tutored by anyone in saying about the incident as to have been seen on that fateful night. During cross-examination, we find this witness to have further stated that when she got up, she saw the accused assaulting her mother (deceased) by that Bhujali. The defence has not been able to point out any infirmity with the evidence of P.W.9 either to disbelieve her presence at home at the relevant time or to have been tutored by someone in so deposing during Trial. 14. P.W.10 is the son of the accused and the deceased, who too is the brother of P.W.9. He has stated that when he got up hearing the shout of his mother (deceased), he found his father (accused) assaulting his mother on her head, face and chest by means of Bhujali resulting profuse bleeding. He has also stated that his mother, receiving the injuries, died at the spot. The natural reaction of this witness (P.W.10) has been brought out during cross-examination that he had gone to call the neighbours after the incident and it has also been stated by this P.W.1 that he had informed his maternal uncle as regards the happenings in the said night over telephone which provide strength to his evidence. CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 8 of 9 - 9 - He states that on arrival of his maternal uncle (P.W.2), he had narrated the incident in detail. It has been further deposed by P.W.10 that he had been examined by the police, who had arrived in their house on receiving the information. The ocular testimony of P.Ws.9 & 10, in our opinion, are wholly trustworthy since no such element appear in their deposition to doubt their evidence on the act done by this accused in that night and when their presence at home in the night is too not questioned 15.
Arguments
For Respondent - Mr.Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing : 01.08.2023 : Date of Judgment:11.08.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.50 of 2013 (SESSIONS)(T) arising out of CT (GR) Case No.98 of 2013 Page 1 of 9 CRLA No.142 of 2016 - 2 - corresponding to Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.27 of 2013 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bhawanipatna. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 8the IPC9). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years with the stipulation that the fine amount, if realized, 50% of the same would be paid to the children of the deceased, namely, Aman Rajguru and Akankshya Rajguru towards compensation. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 07.02.2013, one Ashok Kumar Praharaj (informant- P.W.2) lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Bhawanipatna Town P.S stating therein that her sister Sandhyarani Praharaj (deceased) had married this accused in or about the year 2003 and for last two months, the accused was sitting idle without doing anything and was asking his sister to earn money by working somewhere. Aman Rajguru (P.W.10), who is the son of the accused and Sandhyarani (deceased), informed him over telephone that his father (accused) had killed his mother (deceased). So, Ashok (informant-P.W.2) had gone to CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 2 of 9 - 3 - the house of the accused and found her sister lying dead with bleeding injuries all over her body, being brutally murdered. Receiving the above written report from Ashok (Informant- P.W.2), the I.I.C. treated the same as FIR 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.2) and other witnesses. Having gone to the spot, he prepared the spot map (Ext.1) and seized the weapon. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.1/1). The dead body of the deceased was the sent by the I.O. (P.W.14) for postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He also took step for sending the incriminating articles for chemical examination through Court. The accused, being arrested, was forwarded in custody to Court. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14) 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., Bhawanipatna, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offences 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. CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 3 of 9 - 4 - 5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total fourteen (14) witnesses. Out of them, the important is P.W.2, who is the informant and brother of the deceased. The two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are P.Ws.9 & 10, who happen to be the daughter and son of the accused and deceased, respectively. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.13 whereas the Investigating Officer (I.O.) is 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 17. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.2); inquest report (Ext.1/1); the spot map (Ext.11) and the post mortem report (Ext.9). The opinion of the Doctor separately given after examination of the seized weapon has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.10 whereas the chemical examiner9s report is Ext.16. 6. The plea of the accused is that of complete denial and false implication. He has examined one witness as D.W.1 in support of his specific plea that he was absent at home during the relevant time and he, after having come to know about the homicidal death of his wife, had gone to the P.S., when he was arrested. CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 4 of 9 - 5 - 7. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence on record, has arrived at the finding that the accused has assaulted his wife (Sandhyarani) to death by katuri. 8. Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.2, 9 & 10, who are the daughter and son of the accused and the deceased respectively. He submitted that the Trial Court has not properly examined the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10 in the touchstone of the circumstances emanating from the evidence. It was also submitted that as during their examination in the Trial, they were residing in their maternal uncle9s place, the evidence, if properly scanned, would reveal that they had been sufficiently tutored to point the figure of accusation only at this accused and it is at the instance of their maternal uncle (Informant-P.W.2). 9. Mr.D.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of the Trial Court, took us through the deposition of P.Ws.9 & 10. According to him, what these two witnesses have stated as to the complicity of the accused, no such material has been elicited from their lips to discard their positive evidence. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10, being at par with one another in CRLA No.142 of 2016 Page 5 of 9 - 6 - so far as the role played by the accused is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. 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 15) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 17.
Decision
In view of the above clear, cogent and acceptable evidence on record, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused by holding that the prosecution has proved the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.50 of 2013 (SESSIONS)(T) are hereby confirmed. Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree. Signature Not Verified Basu Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Aug-2023 16:49:27 CRLA No.142 of 2016 (D. Dash), Judge. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi), Judge. Page 9 of 9