The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.666 of 2018 In the matter of Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) No.25 of 2013 (C.T.(S) No.77 of 2012). ---- Palasti Pradhan …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr. D.Sahu, Advocate For Respondent - Mr. S.S.Kanungo, Additional Government Advocate
Legal Reasoning
With such evidence on record as discussed; We are of the view that the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the accused for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC, when the prosecution CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading any such acceptable evidence. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul, in C.T (S) No.25/2012 (C.T. (S) No.77/2012) are hereby set aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith, in case, his detention is not required in any other case. Dr.S.K.Panigrahi, J. I Agree. (D. Dash), Judge. (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi), Judge. Gitanjali CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K.PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing :03.02.2023 : Date of Judgment:10.02.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, in this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T (S) No.25/2012 (C.T. (S) No.77/2012) arising out of G.R Case No. 486 of 2011 corresponding to Kishore Nagar P.S Case No.110 of 2011 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Athmallik. CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 1 of 8 {{ 2 }} The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year. 2. Prosecution case is that on 13.12.2011 around 9 a.m., wife of Arakhita Pradhan (Informant-P.W.1) had gone to the grazing filed and was looking after the cattle grazing there. It is stated that during then at one point of time, suddenly the accused, who happens to be the son of the brother of the informant (P.W.1), came and dealt blows on the neck of his wife (deceased) by means of a Tangia, which resulted instantaneous death. One Ganesh and others being near the place had witness the occurrence. The informant having come to know about the incident came to the spot and found the deceased lying on the land and then accused had escaped. The written report being lodged at Kishore Nagar Police station; case was registered and the investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.15) examined the informant and other witnesses. He too visited the spot and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination by issuing requisition. P.W.15 further seized some incriminating materials in course of investigation. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted placing this accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC. CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} On receipt of the above Final Form, learned S.D.J.M., Athmallik, having taken cognizance of the said offence and after observing formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the trial has commenced by framing the charge against the accused for the above offence. 3. In the trial, the prosecution in total has examined fifteen (15) witnesses. As already stated, the informant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased is P.W.1 and P.W.2 is their son. The scribe of the FIR is P.W.8. One Kumari Pradhan has been examined as the eye witness to the occurrence and similarly, another eye witness, namely, Ganesh Dehuri is P.W.13. The witness to the inquest is P.W.3 and those of seizures of incriminating articles are P.W.4 and 5. The important seizure witness is P.W.10 and his presence it is said that Tangia was seized and in that footing also P.W.11 stands. The Medical Officer, who had held Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased and given his answer to the query subsequently made by the I.O., is P.W.6. The Investigating Officer has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.15. 4. Besides leading the evidence by examination of above witnesses, the prosecution too has proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to 12. Out of those; the important are the FIR (Ext.1), Inquest Report (Ext.2), Post Mortem Report (Ext.4), Seizure List, Chemical Examination Report etc. Some incriminating materials seized in course of investigation had also been placed before the Trial Court and those have been marked as material objects which are M.O.1 to 10. CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 3 of 8 {{ 4 }} 5. The defence having taken the plea of denial, has, however, not tendered any evidence in support of the same. 6. The Trial Court, having gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and upon their indepth analysis from all possible angles, has arrived at the final conclusion that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that it is he who had intentionally caused the death of the deceased by inflicting injuries on her neck by means of Tangia. Accordingly, the accused has been convicted and sentenced as aforestated. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witness in arriving at the conclusion with regard to the authorship of the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased. According to him, when most of the witnesses are post occurrence witnesses and as the evidence of P.W.9 and 13 are in great variance and rather contradict one another as also suffer from some basic infirmities exposing inherent improbabilities, the conviction against the accused for committing the murder of the deceased cannot stand. In this connection, he has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that there being no clear, cogent and acceptable evidence on record to conclusively say that the accused had inflicted fatal injuries upon the deceased, the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court against the accused is liable to be set at not. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 and 13 clearly established the authorship of the fatal CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 4 of 8 {{ 5 }} injuries upon the deceased that it is the handiwork of the accused. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 and 13 also receive corroboration from the medical evidence coming from the lips of P.W.6 as the injury noticed by him are more or less consistent with the version of this witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that there is absolutely no reason and justification to disturb the finding of guilt against the accused as has been recorded by the trial court. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also read the depositions of P.W.1 to 15 and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to 12. 10. The dead body of deceased Sauri Pradhan had been sent for Post Mortem Examination and P.w.6 is the doctor who had held the Post Mortem Examination on 14.12.2011. It reveals from his evidence that he had noticed chopped incised perforated injuries over the root of the right neck on the starnal and of the collar bone of the dimension of 2 ½ x 2 x 4 inch, on the dead body. He had also found cutting fracture on collar bone, incised chopped wound over the upper and external aspect of the right upper forearm of the size of 2 ½ x 1 ½ x 2 inch with cutting fracture of right humerous bone. Another chopped wound over the right auxila anterior line of quite significant dimension has also been noticed. His positive evidence is that all these injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death was homicidal resulting out of the massive hemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs like lungs. All these have been noted in detail in his report (Ext.4). The age of injuries, as has been stated by this P.W.6, tallies with the time of incident as finds mention in the FIR (Ext.1). He has stated the injuries to be ante mortem and the nature of CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} death to be homicidal. Besides the above evidence, We also find other evidence of the I.O, P.W.15 and witnesses who had seen the dead body of the deceased with injuries on neck and other parts of the body. With all such evidence available on record, We conclude in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. Having said as above, this Court is now called upon to examine the evidence of prosecution witnesses as also the documents admitted in evidence from the side of the prosecution as to whether the charge against the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, let us proceed to scrutinize the evidence on record. 12. P.W. 1 is the uncle of the accused and he is the informant and the deceased is none other than his wife. This witness stated to have rushed to the spot on hearing the news, when he saw his wife lying dead on the ground with her face upwards with marks of tangia blows on her chest, neck and back. He although does not say to have seen the accused there on arrival, has gone to state that the accused after killing had fled away from the spot. in view of the fact that he arrived at the spot after hearing about the incident and when he is not also stating to be there nearby at that time and her wife was grazing the cattle within the range of visibility. Thus he has to be taken to be post occurrence rituals. This witness, however, has promptly lodged the FIR (Ext.1). P.W.2 is also a post occurrence witness and so also P.W.3 and P.W.8. P.W.4 is a witness to the seizure of some incriminating materials from the spot who too had gone to the spot after the incident and to serve that very purpose, the prosecution has examined P.W.5. CRLA No.666 of 2018 Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} P.W.9, who was cited as the eye witness, has turned hostile. Although she had stated in her statement during investigation recorded by the investigating Officer (P.W.15) under section 161 of Cr.P.C. that when she with her husband were harvesting paddy in their land and then also one Taranga Dehury and her husband Ganesh Dehury P.W.13 were harvesting paddy in their land, accused was grazing bullocks on his land and that the accused was seen to have rushed near the deceased holding a tangia and dealing blows upon her, she is not stating so during trial. It was also stated that accused had confessed before her to have killed the deceased and then ran towards the jungle leaving Sauri dead at the spot which too is not deposed to during her examination in Court. The prosecution having cross-examined this witness with the permission of the Court except confronting her with the previous statement and then proving the same through P.W.15 that he had so stated earlier during investigation, no other material has come out in support of the prosecution case. Thus, even though for a moment, it is stated that the witness is suppressing the truth yet her evidence certainly cannot come to the aid of the prosecution in establishment of the charge against the accused in any manner. P.W.10 and P.W.11 although are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence, and at some stage or other, had associated themselves in the process of investigation, they, too have denied the same. The other eye witness P.W.12 has also not gone to support the prosecution case and she too had been named by P.W.9 in her previous statement. The same comments are directed to the evidence of P.W.12 and that is also the comment which run in so far as P.W.13 is concerned.