The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.34 of 2000 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Ekadasia Oram ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty(1), Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Dash, ASC CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 31.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellant under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 07.09.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No. 4/5 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant U/s.323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further R.I. for one month more. 2. The deceased, Dukhu, had been working for about ten years in the house of Sujan Oram of village Nirgunpada. He lived in his master’s house as a Kuthia (servant) and was engaged in grazing cattle. On 22.03.1997, while grazing the cattle of Sujan Oram at Simelmunda field near the paddy field of the accused, the cattle strayed into the accused’s land. Annoyed by this, the accused assaulted the deceased with a bamboo lathi. The incident was witnessed by Rajkumar Oram, a companion of the deceased, who even protested against such assault. On the following day, i.e., on 23.03.1997, a panchayat meeting was convened where the accused admitted his guilt. In the said meeting it was resolved that he would pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards the medical treatment of the deceased. Pursuant to this, the deceased was taken for treatment at Gopalpali under a private doctor. However, as his condition deteriorated, Sujan Oram brought him back and left him at his house. Page 2 of 9 In the meantime, the deceased’s father, Lado Khadia, who had gone to visit his daughter at Thama, returned home on 28.03.1997. By that time, Sujan Oram had already left the deceased at his house. On his return, the deceased narrated the entire incident to his father. Soon thereafter, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Following the death of his son, Lado Khadia lodged a written report at Ainthapali Police Station, on the basis of which P.S. Case No. 38/97 under Section 302 IPC was registered. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, examined the witnesses, conducted the inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report revealed that the deceased died due to shock resulting from injuries to the spinal cord, lungs and mesenteric vessels. Upon finding prima facie evidence, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and forwarded him to Court. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The accused, however, pleaded innocence, and his defence was one of denial and false implication. Page 3 of 9 3. To establish the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined a total of twelve(12) witnesses. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are the father, mother and brother of the accused respectively. P.W.4 was a witness to the inquest of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5 was a private medical practitioner, who had examined the deceased. P.Ws.6 and 7 were seizure witnesses to the weapon of the offence. P.W.8 was a Havildar of Ainthapalli P.S., who escorted the dead body for P.M. P.W.9 was the employer of the deceased. P.W.10 was also grazing cattle with the deceased who was also an eye-witness. P.W.11 was the Doctor, who conducted the P.M. P.W.12 was the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, no witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 4. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and taking into account the defense plea eventually the learned trial Court arrived at the following conclusion:- “16. On the whole, on consideration of the evidence on record, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case u/s 323 I.P.C. but not u/s 302 I.P.C. In view of that, the Page 4 of 9 accused is held guilty of the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. instead of u/s 302 I.P.C. He is convicted of the charge u/s 323 I.P.C. accordingly.”` 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6. Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty(1), learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.B. Dash, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned State Counsel have drawn my attention to the findings of the learned Trial Court, wherein it was held that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained and the death was homicidal in nature, however, acquitted the appellant for offence U/s.302 for the reasons recorded in para 13 and 14, which reads as under: “13. He has proved the P.M. Report Ext.5. He has opined that all the injuries could be possible by M.O-II. According to him, internal injuries no. 2 and 3 could be possible by kicks and fist blows. During cross-examination he stood by his testimony and no part of his evidence could be assailed by the defence to render it incredible or unacceptable. In view of that, I safely hold without hesitation that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him because of his assault inflicted on him by the accused by means of M.O-II. Page 5 of 9 14. The last question for consideration, is if the accused is the author of the crime of murder of the deceased. I have already held that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him. Further I have held that the injuries found on the body of the deceased have been caused by the accused. Now the pertinent question that arises is, whether the accused while inflicting the said injuries on the accused, had the intention to cause his death. From the materials brought on the record, it is revealed that death of the deceased did not occur instantaneously after the assault. He died about 10 to 12 days after the occurrence. The learned defence counsel has argued that the injuries are not caused on the head which is a vital organ of the body. This shows that the accused had never intended to murder the deceased. The materials - available on the record shows that when the cattle of the deceased entered into the paddy field of the accused and ate his paddy crops, the latter suddenly got angry and out of provocation he assaulted the former. P.M. Report (Ext.5) does not specifically indicate that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased are grievious in nature. The Medical Officer has never opined that any of those injuries is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. All that he opined is that the deceased died due to shock resulting from the said injuries. The deceased would have survived had he had been treated well timely. In view of the facts and circumstances as revealed from the case, it is not a case of murder punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. nor the accused can be held liable u/s 325 I.P.C. for causing any grievous hurt in the absence of any evidence to that effect. Therefore, the only offence which is made out against the accused is the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. In a decision reported in 1990 Cri. L.J. 486 (Sri Prakash -V-State) the law has been well settled that where the injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature, it is wrong to hold the accused guilty u/s 325 I.P.C. The only offence which is made out against the accused is the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. Therefore, in the case in hand, even if the deceased died due to assault committed by the accused, he cannot be held guilty of the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. in the absence of proof of intention to murder. The learned defence counsel has also fairly Page 6 of 9 admitted in course of his argument that at best the accused can be liable u/s 323 I.P.C. but not u/s 302 I.P.C. for causing injuries to the deceased who succumbed to the same subsequently.” The said conclusion of the learned Trial Court has not been challenged by the State, nor has any material been brought on record to dislodge the reasoning upon which the Trial Court based its finding. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that unless the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is shown to be perverse or wholly against the weight of evidence, the appellate Court ought not to interfere with such findings. In the present case, the occurrence is of the year 1998, i.e., nearly twenty-six years have gone by. The accused-appellant, who was then about thirty-six years of age, is presently in his early sixties. It is to be kept in mind that the Trial Court, after a detailed appreciation of the medical and ocular evidence, came to the categorical conclusion that although the assault by the accused resulted in the death of the deceased, the essential ingredients constituting the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC were not satisfied, nor could the case be brought within the purview of Section 304 Part II IPC, in the absence of evidence of Page 7 of 9 intention or knowledge of causing death. The conviction was, therefore, restricted to Section 323 IPC, which deals with the infliction of simple hurt. At this distant point of time, when almost three decades have elapsed it would neither be expedient in the interest of justice nor in consonance with the principles of equity to unsettle the conviction so recorded and enhance the statement. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 323 IPC. The same stands affirmed. 8. At this stage, Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the State submitted that he has received a report from the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur that the appellant has already served out the sentence awarded to him. In that light, interference by this Court is not called for. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 10. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty(1), learned Amicus Curiae in this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- Page 8 of 9 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of appreciation. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 19th of August 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Aug-2025 19:19:42 Page 9 of 9