Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 813 (ORI)

State v. Putram Lachmaya

2006-11-29

A.K.PARICHHA, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2006
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : Heard Mr. A. Routray, Additional Govern¬ment Advocate. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10th September, 1987 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.127 of 1986 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution allegation was that on 16.5.1986 at abut 9.00 p.m. respondent committed murder of his son Putram Nalayya by stabbing him on the left side of his chest by means of a knife. 4. The plea of the respondent was one of complete denial. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined seven witness and produced documents which were marked as Exts.1 to 14. The knife used and the blood stained cloth of the deceased were marked as M.Os.I & II. The respondent did not produce any witness, document or material. The learned Sessions Judge, Koraput felt that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not enough to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the respondent. 5. The F.I.R. reveals that at the time of occurrence, the brother-in-law of the respondent, i.e., is wife’s brother P.W.2- Totapalli Chinna Pandanna was present at the post who had come over their as a guest. The cousin of the respondent - P.W.3, namely Putram Bojayya, the first informant was also living with his family with the respondent’s family jointly. Though the prosecution story was that on the date of occurrence the accused-respondent asked the deceased to obtain some soft juice for his daughter Bangara Amma, but the deceased refused and quarrelled with the respondent. At about 9.00 P.M. informant-P.W.3 and his wife went to their room and slept there. While the respondent, the deceased and the brother-in-law of the informant were about to go to their bed, again there was altercation between the father-respondent and the deceased son. The informant-P.W.3 came, intervened and subsided the matter between the father-respondent and the deceased son. After some time again they quarrelled with each other and during such quarrel, deceased caught hold of the tuft hair of the accused-respondent and when he was attempting to assault, the respondent with a knife obtained from the thatched roof of the house, dealt stab blow towards the left side chest of the deceased. P.W.2 intervened and separated them. After some time again they quarrelled with each other and during such quarrel, deceased caught hold of the tuft hair of the accused-respondent and when he was attempting to assault, the respondent with a knife obtained from the thatched roof of the house, dealt stab blow towards the left side chest of the deceased. P.W.2 intervened and separated them. Seeing the stabbing incident, he called the informant-P.W.3. P.W.2 obtained knife from the respondent and thereafter he and informant admin¬istered water. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries and on hearing abut the death of the deceased, accused went inside the jungle. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next day in the afternoon, i.e., on 17.5.1986 at 4.45 P.M. But when the P.W.2, the sole eye witness came to the witness box, he did not support the prosecu¬tion story as in his cross-examination he has merely stated that he could not see in the darkness where from the accused brought out the knife and he denied the fact that he had told the I.O. that the accused-respondent brought the knife from the thatched roof of the house. He also denied about any knowledge if there was any quarrel between the accused-respondent and the deceased prior to the occurrence and in that respect he also denied to have given any statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He has also stated that the daughter of respondent was not present on the spot. The other witness i.e. P.W.3 was not present on the spot and came later when the accused-respondent was not present and thus his evidence was of no use. Here it is necessary to mention that according to the prosecution story the respondent asked the deceased to obtain some soft juice for his daughter Bangara Amma but she was not present on the spot. Further no other family member had seen the occurrence. The F.I.R. was also not lodged even on the next date morning, but was lodged in the afternoon i.e. at 4.45 P.M. The blood stained and sample earth, blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased, the knife allegedly used in the incident, lengthi, waist thread and some nail scrapings were sent for chemical examination. But according to the report of the Director and Chemical Examiner to the Govt. But according to the report of the Director and Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of Orissa dated 7.10.1986 blood stains were not detected in the Exhibits marked as ‘A’ i.e. some sample earth, ‘C’ i.e. Shirt, E/1 i.e., length, E/2 i.e. waist thread and ‘F’ i.e. nail scrapings and the blood stains detected in the exhibit marked ‘D’ i.e. knife were insufficient for sero¬logical examination. Learned Sessions Judge giving reasons in the impugned judg¬ment has observed that the theory of ill feeling and quarrel between the accused and deceased has been completely kept out of record inasmuch has prosecution has not proved that part of the case either through the evidence of P.W.2 or through the evidence of P.W.3. Further though there is nothing on the record to indi¬cate that they were hostile to the prosecution, nonetheless if the prosecution found that these witnesses are hostile to the prosecution, then they should have been declared hostile and prosecution should have put leading questions to these witnesses with the permission of the Court. In the absence of any previous quarrel between the accused and the deceased and when the prose¬cution case was that the accused and the deceased were living in a joint family, it is very hard to believe that without any reason the accused-father killed his young son. It is to be observed that at the time of incident, the respondent-accused was aged about 64 years. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judg¬ment. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. A. K. PARICHHA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.