The High Court · 2023

Legal Reasoning

remote linkage. The evidence of P.W.1, in our view, appears to be wholly reliable and having no inherent improbabilities and, therefore, no corroboration is required to act upon the same merely because he is the nephew of the deceased, which is not enough to conclude that he would be falsely implicating anyone in the murder of his elder brother.

14. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.2 lends support to the evidence of P.W.1 that he immediately having rushed to the spot, found the dead body of the deceased lying with the weapon of offence. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that there are certain discrepancies with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and the I.O. (P.W.12) as to the leaving of the weapons such as tangia and axe and their seizure. According to him, the discrepancies on that score are reconcilable and, therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is liable to be rejected. We are afraid to accept such submission JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 10 }} when we find the evidence of P.W.1 to be wholly trustworthy and above the board, but then too the role of by the accused in causing the injuries on the chest of the deceased, which is receiving corroboration from the evidence Doctor (P.W.7), who had conducted the post mortem examination. Therefore, we find all the reasons to hold that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On a conspectus of analysis of the evidence hereinabove, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused as having committed the murder of Raka beyond reasonable doubt

Arguments

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing : 07.07.2023 : Date of Judgment:24.07.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial No.302/135/151 of 2011- JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 2 }} 2013 arising out of G.R. Case No.349 of 2011 corresponding to Koira P.S. Case No.60 of 2011 of the Court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bonai. 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence under section 302 IPC.

2. Prosecution Case:- On 22.07.2011 evening, when one Raut Munda (informant- P.W.2) was sitting near the house of his brother, namely, Raka Munda, the accused Ratan Munda arrived there with a knife. It is said that the accused then entered inside the house of Raka and inflicted blows on his chest by means of that knife when Raka was sleeping inside his house. The accused then also caused several other injuries on the chest of Raka with the blunt side of that taniga. Receiving those injures, Raka died then and there. It has also been stated in the FIR that prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased (who are two brothers) and the accused had given threat of life to Raka. The accused, after inflicting the blows by knife, escaped from spot by giving the threat to the inmates of the house that if anybody JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 3 }} would raise his voice, he would face the same consequence. On the next morning, Raut Munda (informant-P.W.2-) lodged a written report with the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police present at Koira Police Station (P.S.) as the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of that P.S. was absent. The S.I. of Police, in the absence of the I.I.C., treated the written report (Ext.1) as the FIR, registered the case and took up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.12) examined the Informant (P.W.2) and recorded his statement and those of other witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The spot map was prepared and inquest over the dead body was held by this I.O. (P.W.12). The report to that effect (Ext.2) was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The dead body of Raka (deceased) was then sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The accused, being arrested, was medically examined and while in police custody, he is said to have stated regarding the keeping of the tangia. So, that statement was recorded under Ext.3 and then it is is said that the accused having led the I.O. (P.W.12) and others to the place of keeping of that tangia and axe, gave recovery of the same, which was then seized under the seizure list (Ext.12). The accused was then forwarded in custody to Court. The incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court and finally, on completion of the of the JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 4 }} investigation, the I.O. (P.W.12) 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., Bonai, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offence and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total twelve (12) witnesses during trial. As already stated, P.W.2, is the Informant and elder brother of Raka (deceased) who had lodged the written report (Ext.1). The nephew (younger brother9s son) of Raka (deceased) has been examined as P.W.1. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.7. The I.O. has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.12. 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 13. Out of those, important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2); post mortem report (Ext.4); and the statement of the accused (Ext.3) as also the Chemical Examiner9s report (Ext.13). JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 5 }}

6. The plea of the accused is that of complete denial. No evidence has, however, been tendered from the side of the accused in support of his defence.

7. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence let in by the prosecution and having analyzed the same at its level, has rendered the finding that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused, who had intentionally caused the death of Raka (deceased).

8. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.7), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his report (Ext.5) as well as the the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.12), who held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report, which has been proved as Ext.3 and those of other witnesses, has arrived at a conclusion that the deceased has met a homicidal death. In fact, said aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that is also the position before us in this Appeal. The Doctor (P.W.7), during post mortem examination, has stated to have found two numbers of incised wounds; one above the mid stermum and another below the left sternum and abrasions on his left leg and chest. He had also noticed fracture of 4th, 5th & 6th ribs of the left side chest cavity of the deceased. On JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 6 }} dissection, P.W.10 had noticed the injury to brain near occipital area. As per his evidence, all these injuries are ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was on account of the shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the lungs and for the fractures of ribs. The I.O. (P.W.12) has also so noted during his inquest. With such voluminous evidence on record, which have remained unquestioned, we find absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with the finding of the Trial Court that the deceased met a homicidal death.

9. Mr.S.J.Mohanty, learned counsel the Appellant (accused), while not disputing the nature of death of Raka (deceased) as homicidal as reveals from the evidence of Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and other witnesses including the I.O. (P.W.12) and their reports to that effect, submitted that the Trial court has erred in relying upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1 in fastening the guilt upon the accused. Inviting the attention of the Court to the deposition of P.W.1, he submitted that the basic infirmity being clearly noticed therein when no other corroborative evidence has been let in, the Trial Court ought not to have held the accused to be guilty of committing the offence of murder of Raka Munda (deceased). JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 7 }}

10. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of the Trial Court that it is the accused, who is the author of the injuries received by the deceased on his chest by means of that knife and tangia. He further submitted that when the Trial Court, assigning very good reasons, has found the evidence of P.W.1 to be wholly reliable and safe to be acted upon, the finding as to the guilt of the accused is not liable to be interfered with.

11. 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 (P.Ws.1 to 12) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13.

12. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the accused, relies upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1. It is the settled principle of law that in order to base a conviction, the testimony of one witness would be enough provided his/her evidence is found to be wholly trustworthy and free from any such infirmity touching the root or shaking the substratum. The evidence of that solitary witness must be clear, cogent and above the board so as to be accepted and acted upon in fastening the guilt. JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 8 }}

13. In the backdrop of above, in order to address the rival submission, the testimony of P.W.1 is now required to be examined. He has stated that he is the nephew of the deceased (son of younger brother Raka Munda). He has stated that when the incident took place around 5.00 p.m. in their house, he was cooking food and then his elder father Raka was sleeping. He has further stated that accused then came with a tangia and dealt three blows on the chest of the deceased on the blunt side of that tangia whereafter the accused further inflicted two more blows on the chest of the deceased with a knife causing profuse bleeding injuries. It is his evidence that when he protested, the accused, putting him on fear, ran away. The response of the witness is that he immediately reported the matter to his brother Kulu Munda, who has been examined as P.W.4. The witness, having been cross-examined, the defence, as it appears, has simply out some contradiction as to the number of blows given by the accused with the blunt side of the tangia and further two blows with knife on his chest. But, then very interestingly, those have not been proved through the I.O. (P.W.12), which shows that such suggestion thrown upon P.W.1 that he had not stated earlier regarding that number of blows by using the blunt side of taniga and number of blows on chest were actually not missing in the earlier statement. The presence of JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 9 }} P.W.1, at the relevant time at home, has been proved and it has also been proved through P.W.1 that the deceased was then sleeping in the house. No material is shown before us to have been elicited during cross-examination of P.W.1 that either his presence in the house at that time was doubtful nor the presence of the deceased is appearing to surrounding with suspicion. We too also do not find any probable reason to entertain a feeling in our mind that this witness (P.W.1) would falsely implicate this accused and on that score, there is no material to even provide

Decision

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial No.302/135/151 of 2011-2013 are hereby confirmed. Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Jul-2023 11:15:48 JCRLA No.53 of 2016 (D. Dash) Judge (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge