The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA NO.71 OF 2019 From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2008 arising out of C.T. Case No.782 of 2007 corresponding to Kundheigola P.S. Case No.137 of 2007 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh. Babuli @ Babula Naik State of Odisha ---- -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ================================================== For Appellant - Mr. Karnain Sattar, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Addl. Government Advocate. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
witnesses, not only we find that those are consistent but also free from any such glaring discrepancy in them and that also is in consonance with the narration, made about the incident in the F.I.R., (Ext.8). The evidence of both these witnesses wholly tally with one another in so far as the happening of the incident is concerned as well as the role that the accused played therein. Despite cross-examination, we find that no such material has been elicited to doubt for a moment that they being not present at the house during the night have falsely implicated the accused by posing themselves to have seen the incident. In fact these two witnesses have successfully withstood the cross-examination and there is absolutely no variance in their version nor any such discrepancy is noticed when compared side by side. In that view of the matter, we find that the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 14 are wholly reliable. 9. That apart, the evidence of P.W.7 is to the effect that the accused was assaulting the deceased after taking liquor and in the night of occurrence, P.W.12 came to his house and told him that the accused dealt Katari blows on the deceased and then this P.W.7 has also noticed the JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 8 of 9 {{ 9 }} injuries when he went to see the deceased. So, said evidence of P.W.7 provide support to the evidence of P.W.12 as well as P.W.14. In similar manner, other neighbours have also stated. The evidence of P.W.8 and 9, the two Doctors also provide strength to the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 14 as regards injuries received by the deceased on her body and their seat when again it has been specifically stated by P.W.8 that with the Katari, M.O.-I, which he had examined, such injuries are possible. Thus, We find that the evidence as discussed are sufficient and fully acceptable so as to hold the accused guilty for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC. 10. In that view of the matter, We are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under challenge in this Appeal have to receive the seal of confirmation. Accordingly, we confirm the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this Appeal. 11.
Arguments
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING :04.01.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT:12.01.2023 D.Dash, J. The Appellant from inside the jail has filed this Appeal in questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2008, arising out of C.T. Case No.782 of 2007 corresponding to Kundheigola P.S. Case No.137 of 2007 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh. Page 1 of 9 JCRLA NO.71 OF 2019 {{ 2 }} By the same, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and accordingly has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused had married Pramila Amanta (deceased), who happens to be the elder daughter of Kandru Charan Amanta (P.W.12). Their marriage had taken place sometime in the year 2001. After marriage, the accused and deceased stayed at village Kanteikoli for a period of four years. During such stay, it is stated that accused was torturing the deceased both mentally and physically. When the situation went beyond the limit of tolerance, the deceased came to her father’s place at village Nuadihi and stayed there. After few months, the accused also came and stayed there in the house of his father-in-law. On 20.11.2007, during night hours, the accused assaulted his wife Pramila by means of Katari. Immediately, Pramila was taken to the District Headquarter Hospital, Deogarh. On the next morning, Pramila succumbed to the injuries when was undergoing the treatment. The father of Pramila (deceased), P.W.12 then lodged a written report before the Inspector In-Charge (IIC), Kundheigola Police Station. On receipt of the said report, the IIC, registered the case and took up investigation. JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 2 of 9 {{ 3 }} In course of investigation, he visited the spot, examined the complainant and the witnesses. He also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared report, Ext.2. Requisition was issued for holding the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The IIC (P.W.3) then arrested the accused and forwarded him in custody to Court on 23.11.2007. Finally on completion of investigation, P.W.1 submitted the Final Form placing the accused for trial for commission of offence under section-498-A/302 of the IPC. 3. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the above noted offences and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the trial commenced by framing charges against the accused for the said offences. 4. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of P.W.8, the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.9, the doctor, who had initially examined the deceased as well as the postmortem examination report, Ext.5 and other evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the nature of death of Pramila was homicidal. In fact this aspect was not under challenge from the side of the defence and that is also the situation before us. JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} P.W.8 has conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He has found several external injures numbering about eight. On the person of the deceased and as opined, all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. It has also been deposed by him that those are possible by sharp cutting weapons. It is his opinion that the death is homicidal and had taken place within a period of 12 to 14 hours of said examination. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who had admitted the deceased being in- charge of the casualty of the hospital. He has stated to have seen Pramila with profused bleeding from her head, left face etc. with a fracture of the left arm. With all the above evidence on record going un-assailed; We find no hesitation to hold that the Pramila met a homicidal death. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are wholly insufficient to fasten the guilt upon the accused. It was submitted that the trial court committed grave error in accepting the version of the P.Ws. 12 and 14 who have been projected by the prosecution to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He submitted that they are all interested witnesses and their evidence being put to strict scrutiny, no such reliance can be placed upon their testimony. He further submitted that the incident as is said to have taken place as being deposed to by P.Ws. 12 and 14 is highly improbable. He submitted that when the JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} deceased having gone to the house of his father-in-law was staying there, there was even no motive on his part to commit the murder of his wife and as P.Ws. 12 and 14 were not happy with the accused, they have come forward to falsely implicate this accused in saying that he has caused those injuries upon the deceased which had led to her death. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 12 & 14 are full of discrepancies and the evidence relating to the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused, pursuant to the statement before the police while in custody is not believable and that seizure of Katari(M.O.-I) has not been proved through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. He, therefore, submitted that even though it is seen that the deceased died in the house of her father on receiving injuries on her person being caused by sharp cutting weapon, the available evidence on record do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is this accused, who is the author of said injuries and merely because he was staying in the house, he has been falsely implicated. 6. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 12 & 14, the parents of the deceased are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they having clearly stated that the accused assaulted their daughter by means of sharp cutting weapon i.e. Katari, when she was in their house and as no such material surfaces on record to disbelieve their version by entertaining any doubt any manner including JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} their presence at the relevant point of time; said evidence is enough to fasten the guilt upon the accused in holding that he is the author of said injuries received by the deceased who had received good number of injuries inflicted by the deceased which have led to her death. 7. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Trial Court and we have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 28 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts. 1 to 18. 8. As already stated, P.W.12 is the father of the deceased and he is father-in-law of the accused. He has lodged the F.I.R., Ext.8; after the death of his daughter-Pramila narrating therein that she was being assaulted and then he went to the said house where he saw the accused going on assaulting the deceased on different parts of her body by means of Katari. He has further narrated that when he went to restrain the accused, the accused chased him to assault for which he went inside a room and bolted the door from inside and raised hullah calling the neighours, by name and on their arrival the accused left the place. His evidence in Court is that, when he went to the room, hearing hullah of his daughter, he saw accused dealing Katari blows on her daughter. He has further deposed that accused dealt blows at three places on the left hand of JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} her daughter and gave two blows on her back and one of her head and face. It has also been stated that when he protested, accused threatened him to assault by showing the Katari for which he had to conceal his presence in the room by shutting the door from inside. He has further stated that from that place, he and his wife shouted for help and called Bisi Majhi (P.W.3), who arrived and seeing him, accused left the place. He has further stated that when he went with the witnesses to the room, her daughter was lying with bleeding injuries. The evidence of this witness run in consonance with what he had narrated in the F.I.R.(Ext.8). Thus his version in Court receives corroboration from the F.I.R.(Ext.8). P.W.-14, the mother of the deceased has stated that, on that relevant night, hearing shout of her daughter, she and her husband (P.W.12) got up and when both went to the room where the accused and deceased were sleeping, they saw accused assaulting Pramila by means of Katari and on their protest, the accused threatened them to assault, for which they came and remained inside the room by shutting the door and when hearing their hullah, Bisi Majhi and other neighbours arrived; they came out from room and went to see the deceased, who was then lying with bleeding injuries and accused fled from place. JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} Thus, these two witnesses have been examined from the side of the prosecution as to have seen the incident when accused assaulted his wife several times on her body by means of Katari. Having carefully gone through the depositions of these two
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree. Narayan JCRLA NO. 71 OF 2019 (D. Dash), Judge. (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi), Judge. Page 9 of 9