The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.409 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 24th June, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial No.136/231 of 2013. Narayan Behera ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
through the evidence of the witness, we find that practically there has been no challenge to the evidence of this witness as to her presence in the house of the accused during that night and to have seen the accused assaulting his daughter in that night by means of an axe. Merely because this witness is the mother of the deceased, it is not at all permissible to say that her evidence is to be doubted. We find absolutely no such infirmity in her evidence CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 7 of 9 - 8 - and nothing has also come to surface in exposing any such feature/features as to improbability improbabilities. P.W.2, who happens to be the uncle9s son of the deceased, has stated that when getting the information, he went to the place, he was told every detail as regards the happening of the incident by P.W.1. This P.W.2 also has assertively stated that P.W.1 then was very much present in the house. So, there remains the immediately disclosure of the incident, more particularly as to the role played and the act done by the accused. P.W.6, who is the paternal uncle of the deceased, has also stated that when getting the information, he came to the house of the deceased, he was told about the incident by P.W.1 and accordingly, he had scribed the FIR (Ext.1). This witness has stated that by the time, the accused had left the spot, which again provides corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. It has also been deposed by P.W.11 that his mother (P.W.1) had told him over phone that the accused had caused murder of Kamalini. The immediate disclosure of P.W.1 before other witness stand to corroborate her evidence when those witnesses have so stated. In view of the evidence, as afore-discussed, when nothing substantial stands up to bulldoze their version given on oath as regard to the role played and act done by the accused, we find all the justification to confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal. CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 8 of 9 - 9 - 13.
Arguments
Mr.S.K. Dwibedi (Advocate as Amicus Curiae) For Respondent - Mr.Sonak Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing : 23.08.2023 : Date of Judgment: 28.08.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24the June, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial No.136/231 of 2013 arising out of G.R. Case No.60 of 2013 corresponding to Mahulipada P.S. Case CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 1 of 9 - 2 - No.4 of 2013 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bonai. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/506 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year for commission of the office under section 506 of the IPC with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 15.02.2023 at about 8.00 a.m., one Ullas Behera (informant-P.W.1) presented a written report (Ext.1) with the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Mahulipada Police Station to the effect that in the previous night, despite their protest, his son-in-law (accused) had assaulted his daughter Kamalini (deceased) to death and thereafter, the accused, having threatened them, had left the house. It has also been indicated therein that the accused committed the murder of his wife (daughter of the informant) suspecting her character. The OIC (P.W.15) having received the above written report from the informant (P.W.1), treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation. CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 2 of 9 - 3 - 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.15) examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. Proceeding to the spot, he (P.W.15) prepared the spot map (Ext.10). He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared his report (Ext.2). He also seized the incriminating articles at the spot and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. Ther accused thereafter being apprehended was forwarded in custody to Court. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.15) submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offences under section 302/506 of the IPC. 4. Learned S.D.J.M., Bonai, 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. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total sixteen (16) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant, who lodged the written report (Ext.1) is P.W.1 and P.Ws.2, 6, 7 & 18 are the family members of P.W.1 and she is the mother-in-law of the accused and mother of the deceased. The witnesses to the occurrence are P.Ws.8, 9 & 10. The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 3 of 9 - 4 - the deceased has come to the witness box asP.W.14 whereas the I.Os are P.Ws.15 & 16. 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 12. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2); post mortem report (Ext.7); and the spot map (Ext.10). 6. The case of the defence is that of complete denial and false implication. The accused, however, has not tendered any evidence in support of his defence when called uupo. 7. The Trial Court, upon detail examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their evaluation, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The Doctor (P.W.14), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.14. He has stated to have noticed incised wounds on the right angle of mandible of size 1.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. X 1 c.m., below pinna and back side of neck at three places as also on the left humerus and dorsal aspect of lateral side of right hand. On dissection, he has found a facture on C-4 vertebra. As per his evidence, these injuries are ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. He has stated the Page 4 of 9 CRLA No.409 of 2016 - 5 - probable cause of death to be shock and hemorrhage. Save and except this P.W.14, being thrown with the suggestion from the side of the defence that he has not properly conducted the post mortem examination, which he has denied, no further attempt is seen to have been made to impeach his evidence. The I.O. (P.W.15), during inquest, has noted those injuries in his report (Ext.2) when other witnesses including P.W.1 has stated to have seen the deceased lying with injuries on his person. In fact, this aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that has also been the situation before us. Keeping in view the evidence as afore-discussed, we are completely in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court that Kamalini met a homicidal death. 9. Mr.S.K.Dwibedi, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the entire case of the prosecution here is based on the evidence of P.W.1, who happens to be the informant and mother-in-law of the accused, who had married her daughter. He, therefore, submitted that this witness (P.W.1) is a highly interested witness and, therefore, the Trial Court, without critically examined her evidence, which bristle with the contradictions and when the improbabilities are at galore, the Trial Court has erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 5 of 9 - 6 - reasonable doubt. He submitted that if the evidence of P.W.1 is pushed beyond the arena of consideration, the other evidence on record do not establish beyond reasonable doubt, the complicity of this accused as the author of the injuries received by the deceased leading to her death. 10. Mr.Sonak Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been rendered by the Trial Court, has submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is wholly trustworthy and she, being the natural witness, when has deposed in a very simple manner and as during cross-examination, no such material has been elicited to discard her version, said solitary testimony is enough to convict the accused for committing the murder of his wife. He further submitted that with the rock solid evidence of P.W.1, when the other evidence on record also provide full corroboration, the Trial Court is right in convicting the accused for committing the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 11. 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 as P.Ws.1 to 16 and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 12. CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 6 of 9 - 7 - 12. In order to judge the sustainability of the finding of guilt of the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, in simultaneously addressing the rival submission, let us first of go through the evidence of P.W.1. As already stated, P.W.1 is the informant and had lodged the written report (Ext.1). It has been stated in Ext.1 that the accused had assaulted the deceased, who is his wife in the night by means of an axe causing incised wound all over her body. She has stated during trial that on the date of incident, she was in the house of the accused and she saw the accused coming with a tangia and dealing three blows on the neck of her daughter and last one on the left hand of the daughter. She has stated that the deceased, receiving those fatal injuries, succumbed to those at the spot. It has also been deposed by him that the accused had chased him to assault with that axe and, therefore, he ran away and took shelter in the house of a Bhuyan man of their village in the night where he divulged the incident. When we carefully travel
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24th June, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial No.136/231 of 2013 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: 29-Aug-2023 14:14:45 CRLA No.409 of 2016 Page 9 of 9