The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.41 of 2017 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. Case No.105 of 2014. Raya Munda ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode) For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
stained with blood. As we find that this P.W.1 has not even been cross-examined in any manner about the happening of the incident nor any material has been elicited from her to doubt her presence at the relevant time in the house by the side of the JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 7 of 8 - 8 - deceased. Bare suggestion being given that the accused had not assaulted the witness has flatly denied the same. The only circumstance we find is the delay in lodging the FIR (Ext.1). But that, in our view cannot place any doubt over the testimony of P.W.1, which otherwise remained unshaken in which we find no such other doubtful features, infirmity and discrepancy. More-so, there being explanation for the delay, that is not shown to be untrue. Therefore, with such reliable and trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 on record, we find that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC, which thus not warrants any interference. 12.
Arguments
Mr.G. Mohanty (Advocate as Amicus Curiae) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY Date of Hearing : 23.02.2024 : Date of Judgment : 29.02.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. Case No.105 of 2014 arising out of G.R. Case No.636 of 2014 corresponding to Bamebari P.S. Case No.190 of 2014 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Barbil. JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 1 of 8 - 2 - The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year for commission of the said offence. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 27.09.2014 around 7.00 p.m., Gurubari Munda (Informant-P.W.1) and her husband, namely, Siba Munda were sleeping in their house. The accused-Raya Munda came there and asked Siba to give him some Khaini (chewing tobacco). Siba refused to give Khaini to the accused. For that reason, the accused suddenly became furious and threatened that he would be coming back after some time. So saying, he left and again arrived in the house of Siba carrying an axe and assaulted Siba on his neck by means of that axe, which ultimately led to the death of Siba. The accused then fled away from the spot. Gurubari, being a rustic Adivasi lady was not aware as to in which police station the information about the incident was to be given. Upon enquiry, finally on 29.09.2014 around 11.00 p.m, she (P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge of Bamebari P.S. The IIC, treating the same as FIR (Ext.), registered the case and directed one Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.10) to take up the investigation. JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 2 of 8 - 3 - 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.10) examined the Informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Having visited the spot, the I.O. (P.W.10) prepared the spot map (Ext.7). She (P.W.10) held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.3) and sent the same for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. She (P.W.10) seized the sample earth, bloodstained earth and one mat from the spot under the seizure list (Ext.6). Thereafter, the I.O. (P.W.10) arrested the accused and it is stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the axe and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement (Ext.4), the accused is said to have led the I.O. (P.W.10) and other witnesses in giving recovery of bala (axe) with wooden handle, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.4). The wearing apparels of the accused were seized under seizure list (Ext.11). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 4. Learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offence and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 3 of 8 - 4 - commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total eleven (11) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant, who happens to be the wife of the deceased is P.W.1. P.Ws.2, 3 & 4 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.Ws.5, 6, 7 & 9 are the witnesses to the seizures. P.W.8 is the scribe of the FIR (Ext.1). The I.O. of the case has been examined as P.W.10. The Doctor, who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, at the end, has come to the witness box is P.W.11. 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 14. Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.3); post mortem report (Ext.14); and the spot map (Ext.7). The chemical examiner’s report had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.C-1. 6. The accused, having taken the plea of complete denial and false implication, has, however, not tendered any evidence in support of the same. 7. Mr.G. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is none other than the JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 4 of 8 - 5 - wife of the deceased Siba and the informant of the present case. He submitted that P.W.1 is a highly interested witnesses and, therefore, her evidence ought to have been very strictly scrutinized. According to him, detail scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that the same is not of sterling in quality since it contains serious infirmities. In connection with the same, he placed the deposition of P.W.1 in entirety. According to him, when the evidence of P.W.1 is doubtful and not trustworthy and reliable, the conviction of the accused basing upon the same has to fail. 8. Mr.P.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt of the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 firmly stands on the ground. According to him, the place where the incident took place and its timing is viewed, it was not expected that anybody-else other than P.W.1 would have been present there and when the defence has not brought out anything suggestive of the fact that someone-else was also present; the evidence of P.W.1 cannot simply doubted because she is the wife of the deceased. He further submitted that a plain reading, being given to the evidence of P.W.1, it would be seen that no such doubtful feature surfaces therein and when her presence is doubted and it is also not established that she was bearing animosity against the accused, the Trial Court has rightly JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 5 of 8 - 6 - held such evidence to be wholly reliable and trustworthy and accepting the same, having convicted the accused for committing the murder of Siba, the sme is not liable to be interfered with. 9. 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 11) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 14. 10. The prosecution, examining the Doctor (P.W.11). who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Siba, is seen to have proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature since the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.11) as to have noticed a single deep lacerated injury on the right side of neck extending to midline, obliquely present of size 7cm X 6 cm breadth X 6 cm dept with division of right sternum mastoid muscle, right carotid vessels, wind pipe and food pipe with fracture of body one cervical vertebra have remained unquestioned. The injury was spindle shape with clean margin, ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by some sharp and heavy weapon. In addition to the above, the I.O. (P.W.10), who had held the inquest over the dead body of Siba, has also noted all such external injuries in his own language in his report (Ext.3) and that also derive the support from the evidence of other witnesses, who had seen the deceased lying dead with JCRLA No.41 of 2017 Page 6 of 8 - 7 - such injuries. In view of such overwhelming evidence on record, we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the finding of the Trial court that Siba met a homicidal death. 11. The question now arises for answer as to whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused that he had intentionally caused the death of Siba beyond reasonable doubt through clear, cogent and acceptable reasons and accordingly judge the sustainability of finding of guilt as against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court. The evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased is that at the relevant time in that evening, she and her husband (deceased) were sleeping in their house when the accused came. It is further stated that the accused, having come to their house, asked Siba to give Khaini (chewing tobacco) and as Siba refused to give Khaini to the accused, the accused went to his house and brought one Bala (tangia), a sharp cutting weapon and dealt a blow on the neck of Siba resulting his fall and instantaneous death. She further states that when the accused gave the blow on the neck of her husband (deceased), the blood oozed out and even got sprinkled upon this witness (P.W.1) and her clothes were also got
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. Case No.105 of 2014, are hereby confirmed. G.Satapathy, J. I Agree. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 01-Mar-2024 17:59:52 JCRLA No.41 of 2017 (D. Dash) Judge (G.Satapathy) Judge Page 8 of 8