The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.59 of 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur, in Criminal Trial No.20 of 2014. Ananta Kutruka …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.Ramesh Chandra Moharana (Advocate as Amicus Curiae)
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent - Mr.S.K.Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing : 24.07.2023 : Date of Judgment:11.08.2023 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 25th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur, in Criminal Trial No.20 of 2014 arising JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 1 of 9 {{ 2 }} out of G.R. Case No.109 of 2012 corresponding to Bissamcuttack P.S. Case No.32 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Bissamcuttack. 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 10.04.2012 around 3.30 p.m., Kamana Kutruka was taking bath in the outer courtyard of his house. It is stated that the accused came and assaulted him by an axe. Kamana, thus having sustained bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of body, died at the spot. Kamana9s wife, namely, Diama Kutruka (P.W.3), having come outside, saw the accused assaulting her husband by an axe and sometime thereafter, Mamina Kutruka, the daughter-in-law of the deceased (P.W.2), when he came hearing the noise, also saw the accused assaulting her father-in- law (Kamana) by an axe. Raghunath Kutruka (P.W.1), son of the deceased, having heard the cry of his wife (P.W.2), rushed to the spot from the nearby field where he was working. He then saw his father lying dead with injuries on his head and other parts of body. Page 2 of 9 JCRLA No.59 of 2016 {{ 3 }} On that day, around 10.00 p.m, Raghunath (P.W.1), who is the son of Kamana (deceased) lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Bissamcuttack Police Station. The same being treated as FIR (Ext.1), the I.I.C. (P.W.15) registered the case and took up investigation. It be stated here that on that day around 6.00 p.m, the accused appeared at the P.S. with an axe and had stated to have given successive blows on the head of the deceased by axe. The I.I.C., hearing all those from the accused, entered the said fact in the Station Diary Book maintained at the P.S. and had gone to the spot where he received the written report of Raghunath (P.W.1). 3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.15) examined the Informant (P.W.1) and having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.11). The weapon (axe) had been seized under seizure list (Ext.4) and the wearing apparels of the accused were seized under seizure list (Ext.3). The I.O. (P.W.15) held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.2). The dead body of the deceased was then sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. Some other witnesses were also examined and the seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. The accused, being arrested, was forwarded in custody to Court. Finally, on completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.15) submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 3 of 9 {{ 4 }} the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 4. Learned J.M.F.C., Bissamcuttack, 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. In the Trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the charge against accused, has examined in total fifteen (15) witnesses. As already stated, the Informant, who is the son of the deceased is P.W.1 whereas P.W.2 is the wife of the Informant (P.W.1) and the daughter-in-law of the deceased (P.W.3) is the wife of the deceased. P.Ws.4 & 5 are the witnesses to the inquest and P.Ws.6 & 7 are the witnesses to the seizure of the axe on production by the accused and his wearing apparels. The Doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.14 whereas the I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box as P.W.15. 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.3); spot map (Ext.11) and the seizure lists JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 4 of 9 {{ 5 }} in connection of the seizure of axe and lungi are Ext.4 & 3 respectively. 6. The plea of the accused is that of complete denial and false implication. The accused, being called upon, has, however, not adduced any evidence in support of said plea. 7. The Trial Court, having analyzed the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.14) and his report (Ext.8) as also the evidence of other witnesses, has arrived at a conclusion that Kamana met a homicidal death. In fact, this aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that has also been the situation before us. 8. The Doctor (P.W.14), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the death body of the deceased, during the exercise, had noticed one incised wound and two lacerated wounds over the dead body. The lacerated wound was of the size of 299 X 299 X 299 on the left side of the head whereas the incised wound of size of 199 X 199 was found on the left side of the back. It is his evidence that these injuries might have been caused by hard and sharp weapon. Besides the above, as stated, the Doctor (P.W.14) had also noticed simple fracture of left occipital bone and internal bleeding hematoma was present over temporal and occipital region. It is his evidence that the death was within 12 to 36 years of his examination and it was due to haemorrage and JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 5 of 9 {{ 6 }} shock on account of excess bleeding in the brain. He states the nature of death to be homicidal. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.14) and the report proved as Ext.3 have practically remained unchallenged. Besides the above, it is the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.15) and his report (Ext.2) that when he had arrived, he had seen the deceased with such injuries over his head and body. P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 have also stated to have seen the deceased with injuries on his person. With such overwhelming evidence, which have remained unchallenged, we find absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with the finding of the Trial Court that Kamana (deceased) met a homicidal death. 9. Mr.R.C.Moharana, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 and that when the same ought to have been put to rigorous examination as they are directly related to the deceased and interested in the prosecution. Inviting our attention to the depositions of P.Ws.2 & 3, he contended that they are not be believed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased and, therefore, according to him, the Trial Court did commit the error in regard the finding of guilt against the accused as the author of such injuries leading to the death of the deceased. JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 6 of 9 {{ 7 }} 10. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, on the other hand, supported the finding of the Trial Court. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 have been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court in fastening the guilt upon the accused. He submitted that these two witnesses are natural witnesses and their presence, at the relevant time at the spot, under no circumstance, can even be doubted much less to say to be disbelieved. 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 15) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13. 12. The informant (P.W.1), in his FIR (Ext.1), has stated to have arrived at the spot hearing the cry of his wife (P.W.2). It has been stated by P.W.2 that the incident took place on the backside of their house. She has stated that when hearing the noise, she came out, she saw the accused assaulting her father-in-law (deceased) by an axe. It has been stated by her that the deceased, having sustained bleeding injuries on his head, died at the spot. During cross-examination, this witness has, however, stated to have seen the accused going away from the spot when she arrived at the spot. Even for a moment, if it is accepted that this witness (P.W.2) JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 7 of 9 {{ 8 }} saw the accused from his backside while leaving the place, the evidence of P.W.3 clearly stands to support the prosecution case. The defence here has not brought out any material from the lips of P.W.2 that when she arrived there, except the accused no one else was also present nearby. The defence has not made any attempt in that regard during cross-examination. P.W.3 is stating that when hearing the shout, she came out, she saw the accused assaulting her father-in-law (deceased) by axe and thereby he caused the bleeding injuries on his head. This P.W.3 is also stating that her daughter-in-law (P.W.2) had seen the incident. She has denied the suggestion to have never seen the incident herself. The spot here is the backyard of the house of the deceased as is seen from the spot map (Ext.11). When P.W.3 has directly implicated the accused and it is standing corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 that she had seen the accused leaving the place from his backside as no one else was present nearby, merely because they are the family members of the deceased, in the absence of any such serious infirmity, their version cannot be disbelieved. Furthermore, it is also not stated that they had any reason to falsely implicate the accused. Besides the above, the prosecution has also proved the seizure of axe on production by the accused at the P.S. under the seizure list (Ext.4). It is also found from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.14) that by such axe (M.O.III), the injuries noticed upon the deceased were possible, which thus JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 8 of 9 {{ 9 }} stand as strong corroborative circumstances to the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3. 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 well proved its case against the accused as having committed the murder of Kamana Kutruka beyond reasonable doubt 13.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur, in Criminal Trial No.20 of 2014 are hereby confirmed. Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree. (D. Dash) Judge (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Aug-2023 16:49:27 JCRLA No.59 of 2016 Page 9 of 9