The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.762 of 2017 (From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimapara in S.T. Case No.106/23/164 of 2016) Mahia @ Maheswar Mallik …. Appellant -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant : -versus- Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-22.06.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.07.2023 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this CRLA, the Convict/ Appellant challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimapara in S.T. Case No.105/23/164 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 1 of 2016, whereby the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default to further undergo R.I. for one year for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.” for brevity) and to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. It was also directed that the substantive sentences to run concurrently. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant Akrura Mallik alleged in the F.I.R. that he had given marriage of his only daughter Mamata Mallik to one Maheswar Mallik, son of Siba Mallik of village Bhainchigoradi as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, her husband Maheswar Mallik, mother-in-law Jhuma Mallik and father-in- law Siba Mallik along with daughter of Siba Mallick used to torture her on demand of dowry for which with the intervention of Panchayat, he sent her daughter Mamata to her matrimonial home, but on 30.01.2016 night, all the in-laws members of her daughter assaulted Mamata, killed her and burnt her dead body by pouring kerosene in the house. 3. Based on the aforesaid report, in absence of the I.I.C., the S.I. of Police Rabindranath Sethi registered Nimapara P.S. Case No.23, Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 2 dated 31.1.2016 under Sections 498A(A)/302/304(B)/201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and took up investigation of the case. During investigation, he examined the informant, issued requisition to Executive Magistrate to remain present at the time of inquest. He also issued requisition to depute scientific team to collect clues from the spot, prepared spot map. He also conducted inquest over the dead body in presence of the Executive Magistrate and seized some articles from the spot i.e. some burnt clothes, burnt straw, burnt split bamboo, one stove having some kerosene in presence of the scientific team. The LO. seized some marriage photographs from the informant and received the post- mortem report. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons named Mahia @ Maheswar Mallik (husband), Siba Mallik (father-in-law) and Jhuma Mallik (mother-in-law) under Sections 498(A)/302/304(B)/201/34 of the I.P.C. I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act. II. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously argued that the appellant is innocent. The plea of the defence is one of complete denial and false implication. The specific case/plea of the defence as it borne out from the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that he (accused) is in no way connected or concerned with the death of the deceased. He had further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 3 deposed that he cannot say who has killed the deceased. However, he was not involved in the incident.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is without proper application of judicial mind to the factual and legal aspects of law and has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellant which is unsustainable in law as such the impugned conviction and sentence are to be set aside. 6. Due to the inherent improbabilities and infirmities of the prosecution evidence, which belies the prosecution case and show that it is a made up story, the trial court should not have relied on such evidence and should have held that the prosecution evidence as laid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant is not legally acceptable and should have acquitted the appellant from the charges i.e. from 302 of the I.P.C. under Section 201 of the I.P.C. 7. Moreover, despite the settled principle of law of the Supreme Court that, in the Criminal cases conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond all reasonable doubt and accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probabilities, he may have committed the crime, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant without any legal, clinching and unimpeachable evidence, basing only on surmise and conjecture. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 4 8. Additionally, when it is the settled principle of law that, in a Criminal Trial presumption of innocence is a principle of cardinal importance, guilt of the accused to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and probabilities. However, strong and suspicion grave can never take the place of proof. The trial court instead of taking the above settled principle of law without properly scrutinizing the evidence on record as laid by prosecution has morally convicted to the Appellant which is to be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the trial court without application of judicial mind to appreciate the evidence on record and to find out the clinching and unrebutted evidence against the accused has mechanically only by reproducing the evidence in chief of the prosecution witnesses has wrongly held that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused, which concept is contrary to the settled principle of law and is illegal, improper and is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned Counsel also submitted that the trial court although in paragraph-18 of the impugned Judgment has categorically discussed the evidence as regards to the alleged dowry demand, torture on the deceased by the appellant and his parents and have held that the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy to accept and have accordingly acquitted to the appellant and his parents from the charges of Section 498(A) and 4 of D.P. Act, has wrongly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 5 held that the Appellant is guilty under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code which is illegal, improper and is liable to be set aside. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE/ RESPONDENT: 11. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges has examined as many as nine witnesses and relied upon certain documents marked seizure list of stove with kerosene, burnt bamboo piece and burnt clothes (Ext.1), seizure list of marriage photographs (Ext.2), marriage photographs of Mamata Mallik and her husband (Ext.3 to Ext.3/3), inquest report (Ext.4), copy of settlement deed chaktipatra (Ext.5), F.I.R. (Ext.6), postmortem report (Ext.7), spot map (Ext.8), dead body challan (Ext.9) and spot visit report (Ext.10). That apart, one stove, half burnt straw, half burnt split bamboo and half burnt cloth have been marked as M.O.I to M.O.IV respectively. On the other hand, the defence has not examined any witness. 12. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that from the unassailed testimony of the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence i.e. the evidence of the doctor, it can be safely concluded that, none else but the accused is the author of the injuries found on the body of the deceased. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 13. Heard both the parties and went through the judgment of the trial court. After extensively perusing the documents adduced by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 6 the prosecution and the depositions of the witnesses, this Court is of following view. 14. P.W.7 (the informant) has deposed that deceased Mamata Mallik was his daughter, who married to accused Maheswar Mallik about six years ago in the year 2010 and other two accused namely Siba Mallik and Jhuma Mallik are father-in-law and mother-in-law of his deceased daughter. P.W.7 also deposed that marriage of his daughter with accused Maheswar Mallik was solemnized at Ananta Math of village Bhainchigoradi in presence of relatives and friends of both sides and he had given dowry to his daughter and son-in-law. The accused had demanded cot, godrej almirah and cash of Rs.20,000/- which he could not give to them. Then after three months of marriage, his daughter was tortured for dowry to bring Rs.20,000/- along with godrej almirah and cot. P.W.7 further deposed that after three months of marriage, Mamata had come to his house. At that time, his son- in-law Maheswar Mallik came to his house and assaulted his daughter why she had come to his house and why she did not return to his house on his phone call. When P.W.7 protested to the action of Maheswar Mallik, he lodged an FIR at Niali P.S. At Niali P.S. the matter was compromised and a ’Chukti Patra’ was executed. 15. P.W.7 also deposed that his daughter was blessed with two sons, aged about four years and two years respectively. In 2016 January Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 7 30 about 3 am in night, someone from the neighborhood of the accused telephoned P.W.7 that his daughter had been killed and the house was gutted to destroy evidence. He along with his son Krushna Chandra Mallick, Nilu Mallick and others arrived at the house of the accused. They found the house of accused was on fire and the fire service was engaged to extinguish the fire: P.W.J deposed that his daughter Mamata was lying with injury-on head without burning of her saree, hair in her bed room and youngest son of his daughter was with his grandmother. P.W.7 also deposed that the household properties were kept on the verandah. They were not burnt. Accused Siba Mallick, father-in- law of his daughter told that the kerosene stove bursted for which fire broke out and the house was caught fire and his daughter caught fire from kerosene stove, but the kerosene stove had not bursted. Thereafter, P.W.7 wrote the F.I.R. and submitted the said report to police at the house of the accused vide Ext.6 and Ext.6/1 is his signature thereon. 16. P.W.7 also deposed that police brought out dead body of his daughter and conducted inquest on the dead body in his presence. Police seized marriage photographs vide Ext.3 series) of his daughter and son-in-law taken at the time of their marriage from him and prepared seizure list vide Ext.2 and Ext.2/2 is his signature in the seizure list. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 8 17. P.W.1 is son of the informant. He deposed that deceased Mamata Mallik married to accused Maheswar Mallik on 18.8.2010 at Ananta Math, Bhainchigoradi and the bridegroom side had demand of Rs.20,000/-, P.W.1 also deposed that they had given customary dowry articles and gold ornaments voluntarily, but could not give cash of Rs.20,000/- and as their demand was not fulfilled, the accused persons ill-treated his sister Mamata Mallik and told his sister to come with Rs.20,000/-, otherwise would not return to their house. P.W.1 also deposed that after two years of marriage, his sister Mamata Mallik was assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law and Mamata had come to their house and they did not send her back to her in-laws house for which accused Maheswar Mallik lodged a report at Niali P.S. against his father Akrura Mallik. Then police called them and there was a settlement at Niali P.S. that the accused would not assault Mamata Mallik. Then Mamata went to her in-laws house and after two years of settlement of dispute at P.S. they received phone call about fire in the house of accused. Then he along with his father, brother and other villagers went to the house of accused persons and found their house in fire. They found that all the household properties were retrieved from fire and all the family members except his sister were rescued from fire. P.W.1 found injuries on the head of her sister, the hair of his sister were alright, but some front portion of her body was burnt. P.W.1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 9 further deposed that blood was oozing from nose of his sister and dead body of his sister with these conditions was found from the thatched house and later they came to know that his sister was assaulted and killed. Then the accused set fire to their house. P.W.2 is nephew of the informant. He has corroborated the deposition of P.Ws.1, 3 and 7. 18. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Mamata Mallik along with Dr Nihar Ranjan Bhoi and found the following injuries: (1) One ill defined lacerated wound on right side of forehead and not well marked due to burn (2) Intra cerebral hematomma inside brain 19. P.W.8 deposed that the above injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object and death could have been caused due to head injury and burn could have been done after death. P.W.8 proved the postmortem report marked as Ext.7 and his signature thereon vide Ext.7/1. 20. P.W.9 is the I.O. of this case. He deposed that on 31.1.2016 on the written report of one Akrura Mallik, he registered P.S. Case No.23 dated 31.01.2016 U/Ss.498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the I.P.C. and Sec.4 D.P. Act and took up investigation of the case. During investigation, he examined the informant. He issued requisition to the Executive Magistrate to remain present at the time of inquest and issued requisition to depute a scientific team to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 10 collect clues from the spot. Then he visited the spot i.e. the house of accused persons situated at village Bhainchigoradi and prepared the spot map vide Ext.8 and Ext.8/1 is his signature thereon. P.W.9 conducted inquest over the dead body in presence of the Executive Magistrate and proved the inquest report vide Ext.4 and Ext.4/3 is his signature thereon. P.W.9 also deposed that he noticed one cut wound on the head which is down towards cheek, one hematoma on the left eye brow, one bleeding injury on nose and the entire body was burnt. P.W.9 sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Chari Chhak C.H.C. and marked the dead body challan as Ext.9 and Ext.9/1 is his signature thereon. He also seized some articles from the spot i.e. some burnt clothes, burnt straw, burnt split bamboo, one stove having some kerosene in presence of the scientific team by preparing a seizure list vide Ext.1 and Ext.1/2 is his signature thereon. On 10.2.16 he seized four marriage photographs from the informant by preparing a seizure list vide Ext.2 and Ext.2/3 is is signature thereon. P.W.9 received the postmortem report and the spot visit report prepared by the scientific team. 21. In this case, apart from the inquest report Ext.4, the prosecution has relied upon evidence of Medical Officer P.W.8 Dr Susanta Kumar Mishra who conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased Mamata Mallik on 31.1.2016 on police requisition at CHC, Chari Chhak, Puri. The postmortem examination report Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 11 vide Ext.7 shows "one ill defined lacerated wound on right side of forehead and not well marked due to burn and intra cerebral hematomma inside brain". These are the injuries found by the Medical Officer who stated that the above injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object. The Medical Officer further stated that death could have been caused due to head injury sustained by deceased Mamata Mallik. 22. The evidence of the Medical Officer along with postmortem report Ext.7 coupled with the inquest report Ext.4 shows that the deceased was having some burn injury and Ext.7 and evidence of the Medical Officer clearly shows that the said burn injuries were postmortem in nature. Moreover, the larynx and trachea of the deceased were clear and no smoke or soot particles were deposited in the larynx or trachea of the deceased. It is clear that the deceased had met her death due to head injury and the burn injury which was sustained by the deceased are postmortem in nature. In view of above evidence of the Medical Officer P.W.8 along with postmortem report Ext.7 coupled with the inquest report Ext.4 and evidence of LO P.W.9 along with the evidence of P.W.2 who stated at paragraph 1 that "the deceased had bleeding injury near her ear on head" and the evidence of P.W.7 (father of the deceased) who stated at paragraph 2 that "when he along with his son and other family members arrived at the house of accused, they found deceased Mamata was lying with injury on head". The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 12 above evidence clearly shows that the deceased died due to head injury which has been stated by postmortem doctor. Hence, in view of above evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. 23. Law is well settled that if the death is either accidental, homicidal or suicidal, it would be the death which can be said to have been taken place otherwise than normal circumstance and the provision of Section 304(B) of I.P.C. should be attracted provided other ingredients of such offence are attracted. On proper analysis of Section 304(B) of I.P.C. on establishing the ingredients set forth in the above offence, then Section 113-B of Evidence Act provides that Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. On proper analysis of Section 304(B) of I.P.C. and Section 113-B of Evidence Act, it shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment and the prosecution is under obligation to rule out any possibility of natural or accidental death. In this case, the prosecution has established that this is a case of homicidal death. It is undisputed that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than normal circumstance i.e. deceased died a homicidal death. Hence, the prosecution has established the first ingredient of Section 304(B) of I.P.C. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 13 24. The above evidence shows that after settlement at Niali P.S deceased Mamata went to her matrimonial home and after two years, P.W.1 received phone call about death of his sister. If the above evidence of P.W.1 calculating with the marriage of deceased with date of death, then it would be stated that sometime in the year 2012 dispute arose and settlement made at Niali P.S. and after two years of settlement P.W.1 received phone call regarding death. It also appears that after settlement, there was no demand of dowry till the death of Mamata in the year 2016. 25. So far as the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act are concerned, on perusal of evidence of P.W.1 (examination- in-chief) wherein P.W.1 stated that bridegroom side had demand of Rs.20,000/- and they have given all customary articles, gold ornaments voluntarily, but could not give cash of Rs.20,000/- for which the accused persons ill-treated his sister and they told his sister to come with Rs.20,000/- otherwise will not return to their house. It was suggested during cross- examination to P.W.1 that he has not stated the above fact of demand of Rs.20,000/- before the police. The I.O. who has been examined as P.W.9 had admitted in his cross-examination at paragraph 8 that P.W.1 has not stated before him that the accused persons gave a condition that unless Rs.20,000/- will be given to them deceased Mamata Mallik will not be allowed to reside in their house. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 14 26. P.W.2 who is elder father of the deceased stated at paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that all the accused persons used to assault Mamata as Rs.20,000/- was not given as dowry as per their demand. P.W.3 (cousin brother of the deceased) has stated at paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that the accused had demanded Rs.20,000/- as dowry and due to poverty they could not give dowry of Rs.20,000/-. P.W.7 (father of the deceased and the informant) stated at paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that at the time of marriage, he had given dowry to his daughter and son-in-law and the accused demanded Rs 20,000/-, a cot and Godrej almirah which he could not give to them and after three months of marriage, his daughter was tortured for dowry. 27. In this case, prosecution has proved that deceased Mamata Mallik met with homicidal death. Further in this case there is no direct evidence against the accused persons that they have committed murder of deceased Mamata Mallik. The entire case of the prosecution is mostly based on circumstantial evidence. The law is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt should be fully and cogently established, all the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the accused’s guilt, they should be conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the accused’s guilt and should exclude every other hypothesis. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 15 28. The prosecution has established that deceased Mamata Mallik died due to head injury i.e. intra cerebral hematoma inside brain and P.W.8 the Medical Officer opined that death is due to head injury and which has been established by the prosecution that the deceased had met with homicidal death. So far as the burn injury is concerned, the Medical Officer clearly stated in his evidence and also in postmortem report vide Ext.7 that the burn injuries appears in the dead body are postmortem in nature. The postmortem report Ext.7 also reveals that here is no soot particle or burn particle appears in the larynx and rachea of the deceased. 29. Additionally, on the occurrence night, there was quarrel between Mamata and Maheswar are concerned, learned defence counsel argued that prosecution witnesses have admitted in their evidence that accused Siba Mallik and Jhuma Mallik (in-laws of the deceased) slept in the concrete roofed house along with their elder grandson. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.6 who stated at paragraph 2 that Maheswar and his family live in the thatched room, in cross-examination by defence at paragraph 3, said P.W.6 stated that children of Mamata were sleeping with their grandparents. P.W.7 (father of the deceased and informant) admitted in cross-examination by defence that "my daughter and son-in-law used to sleep in the thatched house and in-laws of his daughter along with eldest son of Mamata used to sleep in Indira Abash room which is a concrete roofed house". The aforesaid Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 16 evidence clearly shows that accused Siba Mallik and Jhuma Mallik were sleeping in the Indira Abash concrete house along with their elder grandson and deceased Mamata Mallik and Maheswar Mallik and their younger son were sleeping in the thatched house i.e. the spot house. 30. In this case, prosecution has established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The spot house is the thatched house which was burnt where the deceased and Maheswar Mallik along with their younger son were sleeping and the deceased died due to head injury and the burn injury which has been inflicted on the body of the deceased was postmortem in nature. 31. The prosecution has duly proved the aforesaid circumstantial evidence and if the aforesaid circumstantial evidence are considered separately, it does not prove murder of the deceased by accused Maheswar Mallik. But, if all the circumstance are combined together, it is clear that the murder was committed by accused Maheswar Mallik only and none else. The fact so established by the prosecution as aforesaid are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of accused Maheswar Mallik and the chain of evidence is complete and the incriminating circumstances unmistakably and unbelievably leads to an irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of accused Maheswar Mallik. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the settled principles of law, the chain of circumstances becomes complete without having Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 17 a gap therein so as to lead to an Irresistible conclusion that accused Maheswar Mallik only happens to be the author of the alleged crime. Accordingly, the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is well established against accused Maheswar Mallik from the aforesaid cogent and consistent evidence available on record coupled with the circumstantial evidence. Hence, this Court by this judgment convicted accused Maheswar Mallik under Section 302 of I.P.C. 32. In this regard, the trial court concluded that the post mortem report prepared by the doctor corroborated through the evidence of P.Ws., no dispute to the homicidal nature of death of the deceased points to the irresistible conclusion that, the nature of death suffered by the deceased is neither accidental nor suicidal, rather the same is purely homicidal one. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the Appellant has led to the death of the deceased. 33. In the present case, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the accused inflicted a serious injury on the deceased. This has been established owing to the deposition of the witnesses and due corroboration of the medical report submitted by the medical officer. The prosecution has further established that the injury was inflicted upon the deceased with the knowledge and intention that it is likely to cause death. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 18 34. The result is that this appeal is without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. We do so, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimapara in S.T. Case No.106/23/164 of 2016. 35. The trial court is directed to take all such effective steps immediately in accordance with law to secure the presence of the Appellant to undergo the sentence as imposed. 36. Accordingly, this CRLA is dismissed. ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge D. Dash, J. I agree. Judge ( D. Dash ) Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th July, 2023/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 19