The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.580 of 2023 In the matter of an Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.113 of 2021. Raju Singh …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant- Mr. Lalitendu Bhuyan, (Advocate) For Respondent- Mr. S.K.Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K.PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing :21.08.2023 : Date of Judgment: 28.08.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.113 of 2021, arising out of C.T Case No.716 of 2020, CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 2 }} corresponding to Baisinga P.S. Case No.291 of 2020 of the Court of
Legal Reasoning
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Betnoti. The Appellant (accused) and his brother namely, Laba, having faced the trial for committing the murder of one Ramesh Singh in intentionally causing his death; they have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months. Prosecution case:- 2. On 07.12.2020 around 9.30 pm, one Sanjukta Singh (Informant- P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ext.1) with the Inspector-in-Charge of Baisinga Police Station stating therein that on the eve of Prathamastami, her father namely, Ramesh Singh had come to her house to deliver the new dress for her daughter. Ramesh, having delivered the dress at her house, went to her elder daughter’s house, situated nearby, and it was around 3 p.m. After sometime, on hearing the cry, Sanjukta (Informant- P.W.1) and her husband (P.W.2) rushed towards the house of the elder sister of Sanjukta. They on arrival, saw that this accused, who is the brother-in-law of Sanjukta (Sanjukta’s sister’s husband) and CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 3 }} his other brothers namely, Raju, Laba, their parents, uncle and two sons of Laba had put her father down on the floor and then, this accused, Raju was cutting the neck of her father by means of a sickle when his father, Gana had pressed the head of her father with force and others had pressed his legs. It is further started that when Sanjukta (Informant- P.W.1) raised hullah, Laba pushed her and Atul gave kick to her husband and ran away. They brought Ramesh from that house in a bleeding condition with an intention to shift him to Hospital. They then saw the hands of Ramesh to have been tied with face too rounded with a napkin when the napkin was released from the face of Ramesh, he was found to be dead by then. Receiving the above report from the Informant (P.W.1), the IIC treated the same as FIR and registering the case, directed one Sub- Inspector (SI) of Police (P.W.16) to take up investigation. The I.O (P.W.16) in course of investigation examined the Informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. He then visited the spot and there also he examined few other witnesses. At the spot, conducting inquest over the dead body, he prepared the report (Ext.2). This accused as well as Laba, being arrested by the I.O (P.W.16), it is said that this accused giving his statement had led the I.O (P.W.16) and others to the CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 4 }} place in giving recovery of the sickle. The incriminating articles including the wearing apparels of the deceased and those of this accused and the other namely, Laba, being seized in course of investigation had been sent for chemical examination through Court. 3. On completion of investigation, the I.O (P.W.16) submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302/34 of the IPC. 4. Learned JMFC, Betnoti, receiving the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the offences and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of the Special Judge. That is how the Trial commenced by framing charge for the said offence against the accused. 5. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined sixteen (16) witnesses. As already stated, P.W.1, who is the daughter of the deceased is the Informant and had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) whereas P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5. P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the co-villagers and post occurrence witnesses. P.W.13 is the witnesses to the recovery of the sickle, pursuant to the statement of the accused, recorded vide Ext.8. The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 5 }} dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.14 and the I.O is P.W.16. 6. Besides leading the evidence by examining above the witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.19. Out of those, the important are the FIR, Ext.1, inquest report, Ext.2, statement of the accused leading the I.O (P.W.16) and others in giving recovery of the sickle is Ext.8 where as the Post Mortem Report is Ext.14 and Ext.17 is the spot map. The chemical examiner’s report has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.18. 7. The accused being called upon, has not tendered any evidence in support of his plea of denial and false implication. 8. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.14), who had conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and his report (Ext.11) as well as the evidence of other witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 receiving support from the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and others has held this accused to be the author of the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased. It has concluded that this accused with his brother, Laba have intentionally caused the death of Ramesh. CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 6 }} 9. The Doctor, who had conducted Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.14. He has stated to have noted one cut injury on front of neck at upper border of thyroid cartilage of size 14 cm long x 2 cm wide cutting whole of the trachea with irregular at places and clean cut at places. He too had noted several abrasions and one incised wound and one lacerated wound on different parts of the body of Ramesh. It is his evidence that the injuries are all ante mortem in nature and the death has taken place on account of cut injuries on the neck. We find even no attempt to impeach the evidence of this Doctor (P.W.14). He has also stated that the cut injury noticed on the neck of the deceased was possible by the sickle which he had examined on the request by the I.O (P.W.16). With the above evidence on record, we also find the evidence of the I.O (P.W.16), who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He had noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased including the fatal on the neck and has reflected all those in his report (Ext.2). Other witnesses including P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased have stated to have seen the deceased lying dead with cut injury on his neck and other injuries on other parts of the body. Above overwhelming evidence on record holding firm, lead us to conclude that the death of Ramesh was homicidal in nature. CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 7 }}
Legal Reasoning
10. Mr.Lalitendu Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 ought not to have been accepted by the Trial Court in fastening the guilt upon the accused in intentionally causing the death of Ramesh. He submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 greatly differ on material particulars as to the incident and the happenings therein. He submitted that on close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, conclusion would clearly emerge that none of them had seen the accused cutting the throat of the deceased as also the role of other accused persons and therefore, according to him, these P.W.1 and P.W.2 have unnecessarily implicated this accused and others in view of their previous enmity. 11. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State while supporting the finding of the guilt against the accused and the other namely Laba as has been returned by the Trial Court contended that there surfaces absolutely no infirmity in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they also do not differently state on the happenings in the incident so as to be completely disbelieved. According to him, P.W.1 and P.W.2 being natural witnesses and their evidence when stand without any blemish, the Trial Court is right in convicting this accused and the other namely Laba for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC. CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 8 }} 12. At this stage, it is worthwhile to mention that on our query, as per the information received from the Registry, till date, no appeal has been filed by the other convict namely, Laba Singh, who is the brother of this present accused (Appellant). 13. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the judgment of conviction impugned in this Appeal. We have also gone through the depositions of all the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.16. We have also perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to Ext.19. 14. Admittedly, this accused is the son-in-law of the deceased Ramesh and whose other son-in-law is P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1. The other convict, who has not yet filed the Appeal is none other than the brother of this accused Raju. The wife of this accused is Sabita, who is the elder daughter of Ramesh. As deposed by P.W.1, the occurrence took place on 07.12.2020 on the Prathamastami day in the house of this accused when it was around 3 p.m. She has stated that respecting the custom that the dresses for the elder grand children were being provided by the maternal grandparents/maternal uncle, deceased Ramesh had come to them to give the dress for her elder daughter and the elder son of this accused CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 9 }} whose wife was staying with deceased Ramesh. P.W.1 has further stated that her father Ramesh having delivered the set of dress for her elder daughter, went to the house of the accused and after sometime, she heard the cry of her father when she with her husband (P.W.2) rushed to the house of the accused and saw this accused and other namely Laba to have caught hold up her father and laid her on the floor and then this accused was found to be cutting the throat of her father Ramesh by means of a sickle when the mouth of her father Ramesh was tied by Gamuchha (napkin) and so also his both hands by a plastic rope. Her immediate reaction she has expressed by immediately raising the hullah, hearing which the villagers rushed to the house of the accused and seeing them, it is stated that the accused persons fled away. The written report lodged by P.W.1 which had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 also contain the main happenings in the said incident, more particularly, the role played and act committed by this accused and the other. Having said as above, this P.W.1 has further gone to say that by the time, she entered into the house of the accused, the throat of her father had already been cut. This P.W.1 having stated that by the time she arrived, the cutting of the throat of her father was over, even when we disbelieve her evidence as to have seen this accused; yet her (P.W.1) evidence about the presence of this accused at the very CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 10 }} place holding a sickle and the presence of the other one without any weapon has not been shaken in any manner so as to doubt their presence or consequentially the version of P.W.1. The husband of P.W.1 i.e. P.W.2 has stated that few minutes after his father-in-law went to the house of this accused, he heard hue and cry and thereafter when her wife (P.W.1) rushed to the house of the accused and found the mouth of Ramesh being tied by a Gamuchha (napkin) and his hands with plastic rope. He has further stated then they saw that this accused and the other one namely, Laba had caught hold of Ramesh and laid him on the floor when this accused namely Raju cut the neck of Ramesh. It is his evidence that seeing this when P.W.1 raised hullah, the villagers rushed to the house of the accused and then this accused and the other namely Laba managed to escape. The cross-examination has not at all been directed to demolish his positive version as to the role played and act done by this accused. Similarly, there is no cross- examination in the direction of bringing out any variance on material facts so as to raise any doubt about their presence as they state, having the occasion to see all what they state. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 receive corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 on the score that when he rushed the house of the CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 11 }} accused hearing the hullah, he saw Ramesh lying dead with cut injury on his neck. The daughter of Ramesh has stated to have seen the dead body of her father, in front of the house of the accused with cut injury on his neck and the face and the legs being tied by a napkin and plastic rope respectively. That has also been stated by P.W.5 and P.W.6. The evidence of Doctor (P.W.14) then too provides sufficient corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 when he has deposed to have noticed the cut injuries on the throat of the deceased in further saying that said cut injuries are possible by means of the sickle which P.W.1 and P.W.2 said to have been used by this accused in causing the injuries. We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the clear version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 standing corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 as well as P.W.14 (doctor). In addition to the above, it has been stated by the I.O (P.W.16) that the accused having given his statement which he recorded under Ext.8 in presence of P.W.11; had taken them to their house in giving recovery of that sickle which was brought from near the stored gunny bags. This version of P.W.15 is receiving the support from the evidence of P.W.11. He has stated the accused to have given the statement before the I.O (P.W.16) that he would take him and others to the place where CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 12 }} he had kept that sickle and so saying, he had taken them and given recovery of the sickle whose user in causing the injuries as to noticed upon the dead body of the deceased has been established. 15. In view of the discussion of the evidence as above, we thus find that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this Appeal are not liable to be interfered with. 16. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.113 of 2021 are hereby confirmed. Dr.S.K.Panigrahi, J. I agree. (D. Dash), Judge. (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi), Judge. Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 29-Aug-2023 17:25:25 CRLA No. 580 of 2023