Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 61 (ORI)

Pitabas Pentia v. State of Orissa

2007-01-19

P.K.TRIPATHY, R.N.BISWAL

body2007
JUDGMENT In this Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 8.3.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korapaut-Jeypore in Sessions Case No.292 of 1994 convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Succulently stated the prosecution case is that the mother of the accused and the wife of the deceased were two sis¬ters. Since the wife of the accused expired leaving behind two minor children, he requested the deceased to take care of those children and in lieu thereof he assured to work under him, to which the deceased agreed and accordingly the accused with her two children lived in the house of the deceased. On 6.5.1994 the accused went to village Giriliguda to witness Nacha, so, in the next morning the deceased advised him not to spend money unneces¬sarily by seeing Nacha. On the following morning, while the deceased was returning home after taking bath, on the way, the accused inflicted four successive axe blows on his chest, both sides of neck and back causing his instantaneous death. P.W.2 the eyewitness to the occurrence, after seeing the incident rushed to the house of the deceased and informed about the occurrence to P.W.1, the son of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1, the son of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with P.Ws 3 and 4 went to the Kundra Police Station and orally reported the incident to the O.I.C. (P.W.7) who reduced the same into writing. As the allega¬tion contained in the FIR revealed a cognizable case, P.W.7 registered the case and took up investigation. In course of investigation he seized the Axe (M.O.I) on being produced by the accused before him at the Police Station, held inquest over the dead body, sent it to Kotpad hospital for autopsy, seized the wearing apparels of the accused as well as the deceased, examined the witnesses, visited the spot, arrested the accused, forwarded him to Court and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused, who stood trial thereunder before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kora¬put-Jeypore. The plea of the accused is complete denial of his involvement in the crime. He also denied to have produced the axe before P.W.7. 3. In order to establish its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all, as against none for the defence. The plea of the accused is complete denial of his involvement in the crime. He also denied to have produced the axe before P.W.7. 3. In order to establish its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all, as against none for the defence. After assessing the evidence on record the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for life, as mentioned earlier. Being aggrieved with this order the appellant preferred the present appeal while in jail. It transpires from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8) who conducted autopsy over the dead body that he found the following external injuries on the deceased :- 1. Eliptical sharp cutting injury on the central and left side of the anterior chest wall measuring 5 1/2" x 2 1/2" x 2 1/2". 2. Eliptical sharp cutting injury on the posterior aspect of the left ear on the mastoid prominence measuring 2" x 1/2" x 2" 3. Triangular cut injury on the posterior triangle of the neck on left side measuring 3" x 1" x 4". 4. Eliptical cut injury on the posterior chest wall at the level of the T-7 and T-8 measuring 5" x 1/2" x 2". On dissection, P.W.8 found the following corresponding internal injuries :- i) The anterior chest wall was found cut at the centre with ribs and cartilages from second to fifth ribs. There was adjacent cut to the pleura on the same site. Left lung Pericardium were found cut. Right atrium was cut anteriorly and Aorta was cut at the epical portion. ii) There was a sharp penetrating injury into the cranial cavity at the left mastoid region. Meninges were torn and injured at that site. Brain matter was also injured at the site. iii) Muscles of the posterior triangle of the neck of the left side were injured. Spinal cord was injured at C-5 and C-6 region. (iv) Muscles of the posterior chest wall were injured at the level of T-7 and T-8. T-7 and T-8, vertebra were fractured and displaced anteriorly. Spinal cord was transversely cut at the level of T-7 and T-8. vertebra. As per the evidence of P.W.8 all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by heavy sharp cut¬ting weapon, like the axe M.O.I. Death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock. T-7 and T-8, vertebra were fractured and displaced anteriorly. Spinal cord was transversely cut at the level of T-7 and T-8. vertebra. As per the evidence of P.W.8 all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by heavy sharp cut¬ting weapon, like the axe M.O.I. Death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock. The defence did not challenge the homicidal death of the deceased. So the trial Court rightly held that the deceased died a homicidal death. Now, it is to be seen, whether the accused-appellant is author of the crime. Admittedly, P.W.2 is the only eye witness to the occurrence. So the case mainly rests on the evidence of this solitary wit¬ness. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.2 that on the date of occurrence, while the deceased was coming from the side of the village tank, the accused who was going with an axe in the oppo¬site direction inflicted one axe blow on his chest another blow on backside of the neck and the third blow on his back, for which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. P.W.2 immediately rushed to the house of the deceased and informed the incident to his family members including his son, P.W.1. During cross examination this witness admitted that he had not specifi¬cally stated before the I.O. that the accused inflicted three axe blows on the chest, neck and back of the deceased, but he narrat¬ed the incident to him as to how the accused killed the deceased. The I.O. also stated in his evidence that P.W.2 had not specifi¬cally stated before him that accused assaulted the deceased with axe on his chest, neck and back. But he had stated before him that accused inflicted three axe blows on the deceased. So the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be said to be contrary to his statement made before the I.O. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that the trial Court ought not have convicted the accused-appellant basing on the solitary evidence of P.W.2 in absence of any corroboration to that effect. Corroboration is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence only. If the evidence of a solitary witness is clinching, trustworthy and reliable, con¬viction can be based on such evidence. There is no evidence to show that P.W.2 had any axe to grind against the accused-appel¬lant. Corroboration is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence only. If the evidence of a solitary witness is clinching, trustworthy and reliable, con¬viction can be based on such evidence. There is no evidence to show that P.W.2 had any axe to grind against the accused-appel¬lant. The conduct of the said witness in rushing to the house of the deceased and informing the incident to his family members just after the occurrence strengthens his evidence that he saw the incident. Moreover, as transpires from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3 sometime after lodging of the F.I.R. at the Police Station, while all these three witnesses were very much present there, the accused voluntarily came to the police station with an axe (M.O.I) and produced the same before the I.O. The chemical examination report shows that the axe was found to have contained human blood. So, the conduct of the accused and the fact that human blood was detected on the axe further fortifies that the accused-appellant and none else was the assailant of the de¬ceased. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution failed to establish motive for such a heinous crime. Human mind is mysterious one. At times the perpetrator himself does not know the reason for which he committed the offence. So only because prosecution did not establish the motive behind the crime, the finding of the trial Court cannot be held to be erro¬neous. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that the accused appellant had already been detained in custody for about twelve years and when the evidence on record shows that he did not take undue advantage of the situation and did not commit the crime in a cruel manner, the order of conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. ought to be converted to one under Section 304-II I.P.C. It transpires from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8) that either of the injuries found on chest and neck of the deceased was sufficient to cause instantaneous death. The accused-appellant is the son of the sister of the wife of the deceased. After the death of his wife, while he was in distress the deceased provided shelter to him and his children in his house. Still then he brutally murdered him. So we can not concede to the submission of learned counsel for accused-appellant. The accused-appellant is the son of the sister of the wife of the deceased. After the death of his wife, while he was in distress the deceased provided shelter to him and his children in his house. Still then he brutally murdered him. So we can not concede to the submission of learned counsel for accused-appellant. Under such circumstance, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.