The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA NO.85 OF 2012 From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T.(S) Case No.79 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.65 of 2010 corresponding to Pallahara P.S. Case No.40 of 2010 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pallahara. Goutam Naik ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ================================================== For Appellant - Mr. B.S. Senapati, Advocate, (Amicus Curie). For Respondent - Mr. S.K. Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
examined, We find that her evidence that she had seen accused inflicting the axe blow on the head of the decease has not at all been shaken. She has stated that when she saw, the accused was trying to pull out the axe JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} from the seat of the injuries. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, who is her other son. It has been stated by him that the accused was seen to be dragging his father and having woken up, he with another brother Kali pulled out the axe from the head of the deceased and then accused was near their father (deceased). It is also his evidence that villages had come to the spot. The wife of the accused has been examined as P.W.4. She has stated in clear terms that she along with mother-in-law, P.W.1 and other family members were sleeping in courtyard where her husband had slept inside the room and then, the deceased was sleeping on the patta bhadi in the courtyard. She instead of projecting herself as an eye witness has stated that hearing the hullah of P.W.1, when she woke up, she then saw the accused running away towards forest and at that time, the axe which has been used in implicating the head of the deceased was remaining fixed at the seat of the injury. Merely because he has not been able to speak the size of the axe etc. in reply; those are not wholly insignificant and for that her evidence that she had seen the accused near her father-in-law, who started running away thereafter towards forest cannot at all be discarded. P.W.6, who is the brother of the deceased has also stated that he having rushed to the spot, found the accused dragging the deceased, when deceased was lying on the ground with bleeding injury that axe was JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} remaining fixed on the head and seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. These two witnesses despite being cross-examined at length, We find no such material has come to surface to discard their evidence or even to point any finger of doubt at them to say that they are all deposing falsehood. The sister of the P.W.1 has also stated that in the same vein. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1, when is found to be wholly trustworthy and reliable, it is also seen that the same has received corroboration from the evidence tendered through other witnesses. The presence of the accused at the spot has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In addition to these, We find the evidence to be there on record that the accused being an unemployed having no source of earning and being under mental stress, he was quarrelling with his wife which his father (deceased) was opposing and he then was insisting that he would do some work to earn his livelihood, which stood as the reason before the deceased to be aggrieved. With such evidence on record; We find no infirmity in the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, We hold that the evidence as discussed are sufficient and acceptable to hold the accused guilty for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC. JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 8 of 9 {{ 9 }} 11. In that view of the matter, We are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under challenge in this Appeal must receive the seal of confirmation. Accordingly, We confirm the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this Appeal. 12.
Arguments
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING :03.03.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14.03.2023 D.Dash, J. The Appellant from inside the jail has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T.(S) Case No.79 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.65 of 2010 corresponding to Pallahara P.S. Case No.40 of 2010 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pallahara. JCRLA NO.85 OF 2012 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} By the same, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for committing the offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and accordingly has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is that in the night of 18.04.2010, the mother of the accused went to sleep with some of the family members and accused slept in the other room; whereas the farther of the accused namely, Lochan went for sleep on a ‘Bhadi’ in the courtyard. It is stated that, it was around 4.00 am, the accused came outside and dealt an axe blow on the head of his father, causing bleeding injury. The mother of the accused came out of the room, rushed near the place where he found the accused dragging his father, when the axe which was used in inflicting the blow was remaining fixed to the injury. The mother of accused then raised alarm which drew the attention of the other family members and neighbours, who then rushed to the spot. The injured was then shifted Pallahara Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. The accused then is said to have fled away from the spot. The mother of the accused then having lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Pallahara Police Station, the case was registered and investigation commenced. JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} 3. The IIC, Pallahara P.S. in course of investigation, visited the spot, examined the Complainant and the witnesses and sent the dead body for postmortem examination by issuing requisition to that affect. The service of Scientific Officer was taken to do the needful. The IIC then arrested the accused and finally on completion of investigation, submitted the final form. 4. On receiving the above final report, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pallahara took cognizance of the said offences and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the trial commenced by framing charges against the accused for the said offences. 5. In the trial, the prosecution has in total examined twenty one (21) witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 21 and then has proved several documents, which have admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 13. The plea of the defence is that of denial and false implications. However, no such evidence has been tendered from the side of the Defence in support of the said blow. 6. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.21), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead boy of the deceased and the postmortem report that he prepared which had admitted in evidence and marked Ext.13 as also evidence of other witnesses, who JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} have seen the deceased sustaining injuries including the I.O., P.W.17, who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, has recorded the finding that Lochan Naik, the father of the accused met homicidal death. In fact, this aspect of the case was not challenged before the Trial Court and that is also the situation before us. It is the evidence of the P.W.21 that the death was on account of the injuries on the vital part that is head of the deceased by means of sharp cutting heavy weapon. The size of the injury was 5!! with bone thickness having its seat at right parietal region being obliquely placed as deposed by the P.W.21, which too has been noted in his report, Ext.13. The I.O. (P.W.17), who had held inquest over the dead body in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 9 has also noted such injuries in the inquest report that he prepared vide Ext.2. With such evidence on record, when defence has not questioned the same, We are wholly in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the death was homicidal. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of solitary witness i.e. P.W.1. According to him, her evidence is not trustworthy, when she being the wife of the deceased is highly interested in the prosecution and as they were not pulling on well with the accused, she had all the tendency to falsely implicate the accused so as to see that he when goes behind the bar, their JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} future path would no more be rough. He further submitted that if the evidence of P.W.1 is eschewed from consideration, the other available evidence are not going on to establish the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that P.W.1 is the Informant and she is not only the husband of the deceased, but also the mother of the accused. According to him, when she has come out to depose in the case as to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased by means of axe on his head, which has led to his death, her evidence being wholly trustworthy can safely be relied upon to fasten the guilt of the accused which according to him has been rightly done by the Trial Court by ignoring the relationship which here does not extend to the deceased but also to the accused. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Trial Court and We have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 21 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts. 1 to 13. 10. In order to address the above rival submissions, let’s now straightway go to the evidence of P.W.1, who is the mother of the accused and the wife of the deceased. At this stage, it be kept in mind that there is JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} no bar for recording conviction basing upon the solitary testimony of a witness. The caution however remains that the evidence of that solitary witness must be trustworthy and reliable and it must be free from any such inherent improbability. P.W.1 has stated that it was at in the early morning around 4.00 am having heard some sound, she woke up and saw accused inflicting axe bow on the head of the deceased, when he was sleeping on the patta bhadi. It was also been stated that accused then was trying to remove that axe which had got fixed on the head of the deceased on account of the force used. She has further stated that in that process, the accused was dragging her husband. The reaction of this witness is that no sooner did she saw this, she raised hullah and then the other son woke up and rushed near the place. He snatched away the axe from the body of the deceased and thereafter villagers also came there, when accused fled away towards forest. This P.W. 1 has further stated that injured was then shifted to the hospital where he died and thereafter, her nephew having written a report under her instruction with regard to the incident, she lodged the same at the Police Station after putting her LTI over it. The witnesses being cross-
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree. Narayan (D. Dash), Judge. (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi), Judge. JCRLA NO. 85 OF 2012 Page 9 of 9