The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.78 of 2012 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Nuapada at Bhawanipatna Sessions Case No.77 of 2010 / G.R. No.313 of 2010. Sobharam Sabar State of Odisha -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
- Mr.P.K.Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA Date of Hearing :26.09.2023 :: Date of Judgment:09.10.2023 A.C. Behera, J. The appellant from inside jail has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Nuapada in Sessions Case No.77 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.313 of 2010 corresponding to Jaipatna P.S. Case No.56 of 2010 in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dharmagarh. The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”) and accordingly, Page 1 of 6 JCRLA No.78 of 2012 {{ 2 }} he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) in default to undergo R.I. for six months.. Prosecution case 2. On 28/29.04.2010 night at about 2.00 P.M., the informant Dhanurjay Sabar of village Khalianta under Jaipatna Police Station in the district of Kalahandi heard sound in the house of the accused, who is his neighbour. For which, the informant went to the house of accused and found that, the door of his house was bolted from inside. When the informant called the accused, then the accused without opening the door of his house told from inside that, he has killed his wife. So, the informant forcibly opened the door of the house of the accused and found through the light of a burning Dibiri inside the house of the accused that, the accused is standing by holding an axe and his wife Nirasha Sabar was lying dead in that house sustaining bleeding injuries on her person. Accused disclosed before the informant that, he has killed his wife (deceased). Then, he (informant) informed the said matter to others and lodged F.I.R. vide Ext.1 on its next morning before the I.I.C., Jaipatna Police Station. Basing upon such F.I.R. vide Ext.1, the I.I.C., Jaipatna P.S., registered Jaipatna P.S. Case No.56 of 2010 and he (I.I.C.) himself took up the investigation of the case. During investigation, he (I.O.) examined the informant, visited the spot, seized the weapon of offence, i.e., Tangia (Axe, M.O.I) from the accused through seizure list (Ext.5), prepared the spot map (Ext.11), held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest JCRLA No.78 of 2012 Page 2 of 6 {{ 3 }} report (Ext.2), sent the dead body of the deceased through dead body Challan (Ext.14) for Post-mortem examination, examined other witnesses, seized other incriminating materials through seizure lists, arrested the accused, sent him through requisition for collection of his blood sample and nail clippings and forwarded the accused to the court. He (I.O.) received the P.M. report of the deceased (Ext.8) and made query from the doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and received the query report (Ext.9) and as per the order of court, he(I.O.) sent the seized incriminating articles including the weapon of offence (M.O.I) to the R.F.S.L., Berhampur for chemical examination and report. Then, on completion of investigation, he (I.O.) submitted Final Form placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.,1860. 3. Accordingly after commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, Kalahandi, Nuapada at Bhawanipatna from the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dharamgarh, the accused having been charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C., 1860, for commission of murder of his wife Nirasha Sabar faced the trial. 4. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false implication of the accused. 5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C., 1860 against the accused, prosecution examined altogether 13 (thirteen) numbers of witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 13 and several documents were marked as Exts.1 to 17, those includes F.I.R., Spot map, inquest report, P.M. report and chemical examination report (Exts.1, 11, 2, 8 and 17). JCRLA No.78 of 2012 Page 3 of 6 {{ 4 }} 6. Upon examination of the evidence available on record, the trial court by placing much reliance on the evidence of the witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 disbelieving the plea of the defence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., 1860 and sentenced him as afore-stated. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant (accused) inviting our attention to the depositions of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 submitted that, for conviction of the accused, their evidence is not sufficient, because the alleged incident had occurred inside the house of the accused in the dead hour of the night, for which, they, (P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6) had no scope to know about the same. 8. On the contrary, the learned Additional Standing Counsel contended in support of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence contended that, the well corroborated evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 3 and 6 and the medical evidence is fully establishing that, none else, but the accused has killed his wife assaulting through Axe(M.O.I). 9. It appears from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9) basing upon the Post-mortem examination report and query report vide Exts.8 and 9 that, the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and huge blood loss arising out of the chop injuries by the sharp weapon and all the injuries are possible by the Tangia and the said injuries were sufficient to cause of death. The deceased had sustained chop injury on her both the arms, face, neck through the repeated blows by Tangia. All the said injuries are ante-mortem in nature. So the findings given by the learned trial court in the judgment about the homicidal nature of death of the deceased being the outcome of the injuries caused through assault by Tangia receives affirmation. JCRLA No.78 of 2012 Page 4 of 6 {{ 5 }} P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 are the neighbours of the deceased. 10. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence by stating that the accused and the deceased were his neighbours. On 28.04.2010 night at about 2.00 A.M. he hard sound from the house of the accused, then, he asked the accused to open the door but, he did not open and told loudly that, he has killed the deceased. Then he (P.W.1) entered into the house of the accused by breaking upon the door and found that the accused was standing with an Tangia(Axe) in his hand and his wife was lying dead on the floor with profuse bleeding from her neck. A lamp (Dibiri) was burning there. He asked Rahas (P.W.3) to watch there and he proceeded to inform the matter to the parents of the deceased. 11. P.W.3 has deposed in his evidence by stating that in the mid night on the date of incident, the informant (P.W.) came to his house and disclosed that, the accused has already killed his wife in his house. He (P.W.1) requested him to guard the house of the accused. The informant went to the house of the parents of the deceased to inform the same. 12. P.W.6 has deposed in his evidence by stating that the accused is his father-in-law and the deceased is his mother-in-law. After hearing about the killing his mother-in-law by his father-in-law, he came to the house of the accused on next morning of the incident. The police came at about 10.00 A.M. and on call of the police, the accused came with Tangia. The said Tangia was sustained with blood. P.W.2 has corroborated the above evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 6. 13. It appears from the above well corroborated evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 that while on 28.04.2010 night, the accused and his deceased wife were sleeping inside their house, at about 2.00 A.M. his wife was Page 5 of 6 JCRLA No.78 of 2012 {{ 6 }} found dead sustaining multiple bleeding injuries. There is no explanation at all on behalf of the accused about the cause of injuries on the person of his wife, which resulted her death. Though as per law, he (accused) is bound to explain. So, by taking the above factors into account, we are of the considered view that none else, but the accused is the author of the injuries on the person of his deceased wife, which had resulted her instantaneous death inside his bed room. 14. On analysis of evidence, hereinabove, we thus, find that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused has committed murder of his wife Nirasha Sabar. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as returned by the Trial Court below are not liable to be interfered with.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.77 of 2010 against the appellant (accused) are hereby confirmed. Mr. D. Dash, J. I Agree. (A.C. Behera), Judge. (D.Dash), Judge. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th of October, 2023/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 13-Oct-2023 18:53:28 JCRLA No.78 of 2012 Page 6 of 6