Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 44 (ORI)

PITHA ALIAS PITAMBAR HEMBRAM v. SATE OF ORISSA

2002-01-23

B.PANIGRAHI, M.PAPANNA

body2002
JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal assails the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Mayurbhanj at Baripada in S.T. Case No. 138 of 1993 under Sections. 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for commission of offence of death of one Khudiram Marandi and also for an attempt on the life of one Raimani Marandi. 2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as narrated during trial is that the Appellant had built his house on the land of the deceased. Since that time onwards there was 'love-lost' between them. On 28th February 1993 Khudiram Marandi and his wife Raimani Marandi were going to the shop for purchasing tobacco. The Appellant all on a sudden appeared at the scene of occurrence and dealt blows indiscriminately on the head and body of the deceased Khudiram Marandi who fell down and immediately collapsed. Thereafter, the Appellant successively also dealt blows on Raimani Marandi to cause her death. But fortunately she survived. When both of them were in a pool of blood, the Appellant behaved in an outrageous manner, severed the head from the trunk of Khudiram Marandi and tied in a plastic bag and thereafter, proceeded to Rasgobindapur police station whereupon he produced the bag containing the severed head of the deceased, the axe and the spade before the O.I.C., Rasgobindapur Police Station (P.W.11) and apprised him the graphic picture of the prosecution story. The Police Officer detained the accused at the Police Station seized the bag containing the head and weapons and immediately swung into action. P.W.11 proceeded to the place of incident. Subsequently the Circle inspector of Police (P.W.10) assumed the charge of investigation from him and thereafter, the charge-sheet was placed in Court. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge on a careful consideration of the evidence placed before him was however, inclined to record an order of conviction under Sections. 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 4. The defence plea in nutshell is that the above case-was foisted against him due to previous enmity and ill feeling between the Appellant and the deceased. In order to prove the culpability against the Appellant, the prosecution chose to examine 11 witnesses. P.W.11 was the officer-in-charge of Rasgobindapur Police Station. 4. The defence plea in nutshell is that the above case-was foisted against him due to previous enmity and ill feeling between the Appellant and the deceased. In order to prove the culpability against the Appellant, the prosecution chose to examine 11 witnesses. P.W.11 was the officer-in-charge of Rasgobindapur Police Station. Before the trial Court he narrated the incident by stating that the Appellant appeared at the Police Station carrying a plastic bag which contained severed head, a spade and an axe. The Appellant voluntarily disclosed that he had killed the deceased Khudiram and had brought the severed head in the plastic bag. The severed head was fresh and still cozing blood. After making Station Diary entry, he detained the Appellant and proceeded to spot where he found a headless human male body lying on the village road in front of the house of the Appellant. At the spot, Dulli Marandi, the daughter of the deceaed Khudiram Marandi lodged a report which was reduced to Writing. He also noticed the other injured Raimani Marandi who was lying on the ground in an unconscious stage. He immediately sent the injured in the Police Vehicle to the hospital for her proper treatment and medical examination. At this juncture, P.W.10, the Circle Inspector of Police reached at the spot and received the charge of investigation from P.W.11. P.W.10 further proved that he conducted the inquest of the headless body which was lying in front of the house of the accused. Consequent thereupon, the severed head was rejoined with the trunk and a fresh inquest was conducted. The Station Diary entry and inquest reports have been proved in this Case. FIR has been proved as Ext.-1 and the Station Diary entry No. 507 as Ext.-5, the inquest reports vide Exts. 7 and 5 and the dead body challan vide Ext.-21 have also been proved. 5. The Medical report of the injured Raimani Marandi revels that she sustained an injury with incise wound of 3" ? 1/10" ? 1/10" over the left side Scalp 2" above, the left ear. At the time of examiantion she was unconscious and thereafter admitted as an Indoor Patient and subsequently discharged on 11.3.1993. The injury report has been marked as Ext. 14/1. 1/10" ? 1/10" over the left side Scalp 2" above, the left ear. At the time of examiantion she was unconscious and thereafter admitted as an Indoor Patient and subsequently discharged on 11.3.1993. The injury report has been marked as Ext. 14/1. P.W.7 who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Khudiram Marandi on Police requisition on 1.3.1993 had opined that the head and trunk belogned to the same body and there were incised wounds on the neck, cheek, left eye-brow, left ear lobula, occipital region of the scalp, left fore-arm. There was also fracture of the mandible left. He further opined that the cut end of the skin, muscles, carotid vessel, nerves, trachea esophagus, spinal cord etc. were exposed in between the shoulders. The death was the outcome of the cut injuries. According to the Doctor, death might have occurred some time on 28th February, 1993. The report has been marked as Ext. 12. 6. The learned Sessions Judge in the judgment has left no stone unturned in scrupulously examining the evidence of the medical witnesses and also of the Police Officers. From the judgment it further appears that he evidence of those witnesses had remained unshattered. There Is no reason as to why this Court shall differ from the learned Sessions Judge who had relied upon the official witnesses with regard to the injury on Raimani and also the death caused to Khudiram. 7. May it be noted here that the learned Sessions Judge has not only relied upon the evidence of the official witnesses but also discussed the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 (Dulli Marandi) is the daughter of the deceased and is the informant in this case. From her statement it is crystal clear that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on Sunday evening at 8.00 p.m. when her parents went to the shop room of Singrai to purchase tobacco, she heard a sound that Pitha @ pitambar Hembram was killing the-deceased. By hearing such outcry, she immediately rushed to the spot holding a lantern in her hand and found her parents lying in a pool of blood in front of the house of the Appellant. She further narrated that the accused was standing with an axe in his hand and as giving kicks to the deceased. By hearing such outcry, she immediately rushed to the spot holding a lantern in her hand and found her parents lying in a pool of blood in front of the house of the Appellant. She further narrated that the accused was standing with an axe in his hand and as giving kicks to the deceased. When she approached her parents, the accused also kicked her as a result of which she fell down. Thereafter, the accused dealt several blows successively with a spade to the deceased as a result of which the head was totally severed from the trunk. 8. The evidence further shows that the Appellant brought a plastic bag and put the severed head inside the bag and, thereafter, carried it with the blood stained axe, spade and declared that he is going to Rasgobindapur Police station. It we combinely read the evidence of P.W.2 and P.Ws. 10 and 11 and the M.O. examined in his case, there is no room of doubt that it was the Appellant alone who had committed such dastardly act. It is significant to note that P.W.2 was the daughter of the deceased and there is no reason as to why she should implicate falsely the Appellant. 9. From the evidence adduced by P.W.1, who is the eye-witness, it has further been revealed that in the night of occurrence, after having heard the outcry from the house of the deaceased (Khudiram), he came out and found that the Appellant was inflicting axe blows on Khudiram in front of his house. His further statement discloses that Raimani was found lying on the ground with bleeding injury. Thereafter, the Appellant brought out a spade and mercilessly dealt several successive blows on the neck of Khudiram for which the head was separated. He kept the head inside a plastic bag and carried it alongwith the spade and also an axe to Rasgobindapur Police Station. The evidence of P.W.3 is also on the similar vein. Therefore, on a careful reading of the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 2 & 3 alongwith the official witnesses, we are of the opinion that the Appellant committed grisly murder of Khudiram and also made an attempt on the life of Raimani. The evidence of P.W.3 is also on the similar vein. Therefore, on a careful reading of the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 2 & 3 alongwith the official witnesses, we are of the opinion that the Appellant committed grisly murder of Khudiram and also made an attempt on the life of Raimani. As he has committed merciless act in committing the murder of Khudiram and also made an attempt on the life of Raimani who fortunately survived, the Appellant does hot deserve any sympathy. 10. Accordingly we upheld the order of conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. M. Papanna, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed