The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.50 of 2022 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 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017. Rai @ Raya Singh ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.Malaya Kumar Swain (Advocate) For Respondent - Mr.S.K. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing : 21.07.2023 : Date of Judgment:11.08.2023 The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the D.Dash,J. jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017 arising out of C.T. No.227 of 2017 corresponding to Oupada P.S. Case No.31 of 2017 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Nilgiri. JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 15.06.2017 during the noon hours, one Laxmikanta Nayak (P.W.5) presented a written report with the Officer-in- Charge (OIC) of Oupada Police Stating therein that on the previous afternoon, he with his father Rabindra Nayak (deceased) and one Uday Das (P.W.2) had been to the house of Rangabati Ghadei of Village-Paidajhara for collecting the hire charges towards use of their Tractor. When Rabindra (deceased) asked Rangabati to pay the hire charges, a quarrel took place between them. It is stated that at that time, the accused being present there, was consuming Handia (a local intoxicant drink). It is stated that the accused immediately came out of the house and told the deceased <SALA RAHA TOTE DEKHUCHHI=. By saying so, he went inside the house and then shot an arrow from the bow from his house aiming at the chest of the deceased. The deceased, sustaining the said arrow shot injury, fell on the ground and started groaning in pain. The accused then attempted to pull out the arrow from the chest of the deceased, but failed in JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} the process, the arrow got broken. The accused fled away from the spot. Laxmikanta (P.W.5) with Uday (P.W.2) brought the deceased in a motorcycle to their house and shifted him to Soro hospital in a Bolero vehicle where the Doctor declared him as dead. The written report to the above effect being scribed by one Ananta Kumar Das (P.W.1) when was received by the Inspector-
Legal Reasoning
in-Charge (I.I.C.-P.W.14), he treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation. 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.14) examined the informant (P.W.5) and other witnesses. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.2). The dead body of Rabindra was then sent for post mortem examination and after that, the wearing apparels of the deceased were seized under the seizure list. The broken piece of arrow and the bow were seized pursuant to the statement of the accused while in police custody. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 4. Learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri, on receipt of above Final Form, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing all the JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offences against this accused. 5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total fourteen (14) witnesses. As already stated, the informant, who is the son of the deceased has been examined as P.W.5 and the scribe of the FIR lodged by P.W.5 has come to the witness box as P.W.1. The prosecution has examined P.W.2 as the eye witness to the occurrence and he is said to have accompanied the deceased and P.W.5 to the house of Rangabati. P.Ws.3 & 4 are the witnesses to the inquest whereas P.Ws.7 & 8 are the witnesses to the statement said to have been given by the accused while in police custody pursuant to which it is said that the broken arrow and bow were recovered and seized. The wife and another son of the deceased have come to the witness box as P.Ws.9 & 10 respectively. The Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.13 whereas the Investigation Officer has been examined as P.W.14. 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 11. Since detail list to that effect finds appended to the judgment of the Trial court, those are not further described here to avoid JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} repetition, but those would stand referred to as and when required in course of discussion to follow. 6. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial and false implication. However, being called upon, the accused had not led any evidence in support of said plea. 7. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.13), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and his report (Ext.7) as well as the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14), who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and his report to that effect (Ext.2) as also the evidence of other witnesses mainly, P.Ws.2 & 5, has come to a conclusion that the death of Rabindra was homicidal. In fact this aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that has been the position before us. Keeping that in mind, having gone through the deposition of the Doctor (P.W.13) and his report (Ext.7) as also the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14) and his report (Ext.2) as well as the evidence of other witness, who had seen the deceased with arrow shot injury, we find absolutely no reason to record our disapproval to the finding of the Trial Court as regards the nature of death of Rabindra to be homicidal. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused), from the very beginning, instead of attacking the finding as to the authorship of JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} the injury upon the deceased attributed to the accused as has been recorded by the Trial Court, confined the submission that viewing the happenings in the incident as also the subsequent events, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC. He, therefore, urged for alteration of the conviction for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC to offence under section 304-I of the IPC and accordingly, he contended that the accused be visited with the sentence as would be appropriate for the said offence. 9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted all in favour of the finding returned by the Trial Court that the accused is liable for commission of the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. He further submitted that with the proven facts and circumstances emerging from evidence, the Trial Court did commit no mistake in holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 10. 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 14 and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 21. JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} 11. It cannot be laid down as an universal rule that when one arrow shot or knife injury is inflicted, for the said act, attraction of the offence under section 302 of the IPC shall stand automatically ruled out. It would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere fact that only blow was given, or arrow shot made, though fatal by itself, cannot automatically take the case out of the purview of the provisions of Section 300 IPC, if the requisite ingredients of that section are proved. In order to bring in Clause-3 and section 300, prosecution must prove the following facts:- 89(a) it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; (b) the nature of injury must be proved. These are purely objective assessments; (c) it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further; and (d) it must be proved that the injury of the type described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective.” 12. In the instant case, it has been stated by P.W.2 that when the deceased asked Rangabati to pay him the hire charges, he was scolded by Rangabati and the accused person was then present in JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} that area. It is further stated that the accused saying that the deceased is harassing Rangabati, went to his house and brought the bow and arrow and shot at the deceased which hit on the left side of the chest of the deceased causing bleeding injury. The evidence is lacking on the score that shot was aimed at the chest. The incident appears to have happened all of a sudden and P.W.5 has stated that when his father (deceased) insisted for payment, accused, who was standing nearby, went to his house, brought bow and arrow and shot the arrow, which hit at the chest of the deceased. He has further stated that the accused thereafter took the step to pull out the arrow and in the process, the arrow was broken. This shows that the accused, having the repentance, wanted to save the situation and life of the deceased. He has further stated that the accused had remained there for a period of fifteen minutes observing the talks when there was also no prior enmity between the accused and the deceased. Although it is their evidence that the accused was not taking the Handia (a local intoxicant) at the relevant time, the prosecution case, as laid in the FIR (Ext.1) is to the effect that the accused, being present nearby, was consuming Handi (a local intoxicant drink), which is given good-bye to during the Trial. 13. Taking a cumulative view of all these above circumstances appearing in the evidence, as discussed; we are of the view that the offence under section 302 of the IPC could be properly Page 8 of 9 JCRLA No.50 of 2022 {{ 9 }} categorized as one punishable under section 304-I of the IPC. We are thus of the considered opinion that for the role played by the accused and the act done, he would be liable for conviction under section 304-I of the IPC. 14.
Decision
In the result the Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017 for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC is altered to one under section 304-I of the IPC. Consequently, the Appellant (accused) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. 15. With the modification as to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017 to the extent, as indicated above, the Appeal stands disposed of. 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: 17-Aug-2023 16:49:27 JCRLA No.50 of 2022 Page 9 of 9