Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 22 (ORI)

SHYAM SINGH ALIAS BABAJI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-01-08

B.P.RAY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellant having been convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 225/18 of 1996, has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case as revealed from record is that on 22.1.1996 the Appellant had rebuked the deceased-Banalata calling her as a witch. As a protest against such allegation, Banalata requested the villagers to call a meeting on 23.1.1996. The meeting was called on 23.1.1996 at 6.00 A.M. in the morning. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Banalata on the date of meeting went from house to house to call everyone to attend the meeting. On the way she also went to the house of the Appellant and called him to attend the meeting. The Appellant did not agree to attend the meeting as a result of which there was an altercation between the Appellant and Banalata and in course of such altercation, Appellant is alleged to have stabbed Banalata by means of a knife on her neck and back. It is further alleged that the Appellant after stabbing Banalata, ran out of the house with the knife in his hand and entered into the house of one Gora Singh. The villagers caught hold of the Appellant and handed him over to the police.On these allegations, the First Information Report having been lodged and the case having been registered for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, investigation was undertaken. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for commission of the said offence. 3. In course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the charge; but none was examined on behalf of the Appellant. 4. The plea of the Appellant was complete denial of the prosecution allegation. 5. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available against the Appellant, found him guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder. Mr. Pani submitted that there was a grave and sudden provocation arising because of altercation between the Appellant and Banalata inside the house of the Appellant as a result of which the Appellant stabbed Banalata by means of a knife. In view of the above, the Appellant could not have been convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. Mr. Pani submitted that there was a grave and sudden provocation arising because of altercation between the Appellant and Banalata inside the house of the Appellant as a result of which the Appellant stabbed Banalata by means of a knife. In view of the above, the Appellant could not have been convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, even if the circumstantial evidence available on record, are found to be completing the chain of circumstances, the Appellant could only be convicted u/s 304, Part-I Indian Penal Code. The Learned Counsel for the State referring to the evidence adduced in course of trial, submitted that the circumstances put forth by the prosecution in course of trial, not only complete the chain but also aim at the guilt of the Appellant and, therefore,he has been rightly convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. 6. P.W.1 was residing with the Appellant in the house where the incident took place. On the date of occurrence he had gone to another village and after returning, he heard about the incident and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in front of the house of the Appellant. He, thereafter proceeded to Chandikhol and intimated the OIC, Dharmasala Police Station over phone. After getting information, police came to the village to enquire into the matter. The oral report was reduced to writing and formal F.I.R. was registered. P.W.2 in his deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence, he, P.W.3 and one Laxmidhar Singh, were going to attend the meeting and on their way, they proposed to go to the house of the Appellant to request him to join them for attending the meeting. Near the house of the Appellant, they were standing outside and the deceased went into the house of the Appellant to call him to attend the meeting. They heard some altercation from outside the house and immediately thereafter, they also heard the voice of Banalata saying "MARIGALI MARIGALI". When they rushed into the house, they found Banalata the deceased crawling out. They lifted her and saw that her throat had been cut and it was bleeding. There was another stab injury on her left side back. They heard some altercation from outside the house and immediately thereafter, they also heard the voice of Banalata saying "MARIGALI MARIGALI". When they rushed into the house, they found Banalata the deceased crawling out. They lifted her and saw that her throat had been cut and it was bleeding. There was another stab injury on her left side back. The Appellant ran away from the house and entered into the house of one Gora Singh and while running away, he was holding a knife in his hand. This witness has further stated that while entering into the house of Gora Singh, Appellant threw the knife on the verandah of Gora Singh's house. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve the presence of this witness near the place of occurrence. Similar is the evidence of P.W.3 who accompanied P.W.2. This witness has gone a further step ahead by saying that Banalata-the deceased told them that she had been stabbed by the Appellant by means of a knife. This part of the statement made by P.W.3 in examination-in-chief, has not been unsettled in cross-examination. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, found three incised injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and could be caused by sharp cutting weapon. P.W.6 is another witness who had seen the Appellant running away with knife in his hand. This witness has also seen the deceased lying dead. P.W.8 has stated that the villagers brought the Appellant from the house of Gora Singh where he was hiding. Apart from this oral evidence available on record, it is also found that the knife seized by the Appellant in course of investigation, contained extensive human blood of group 'A' belonging to the deceased. Though it was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the altercation between the Appellant and the deceased gave rise to a grave and sudden provocation, we do not find much force in such contention because of the reason that the deceased had entered into the house of the Appellant to request him to attend the meeting and the Appellant refused to attend the meeting. This could not have given rise to a grave and sudden provocation to cause the death of the deceased. This could not have given rise to a grave and sudden provocation to cause the death of the deceased. The circumstances available against the Appellant clearly show that the deceased had entered into the house of the Appellant on the date of occurrence and P. Ws.2 & 3 heard the voice of the deceased saying; "MARIGALI MARIGALI" and when they entered into the house of the Appellant, they found Banalata-the deceased to have sustained injuries and immediately thereafter she died. The other evidence available, also clearly show that the Appellant immediately after the occurrence ran out of the house with the knife in his hand and entered into the house of one Gora Singh from where he was caught by the villagers. The knife which the Appellant was holding at the time of incident, was stained with human blood belonging to the deceased. There is nothing to show that any other person was present in the house of the Appellant when the deceased entered the house. This evidence clearly indicates that the Appellant and the Appellant alone who could have stabbed the deceased by means of the knife. The Appellant having stabbed the deceased which resulted in three incised wounds, intention was to kill the deceased. We, therefore, hold that the circumstances available against the Appellant not only complete the chain of circumstances but also clearly point at the guilt of the Appellant and it is the Appellant and the Appellant alone who could have caused the death of the deceased. We, therefore, did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed