Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 31 (ORI)

MARKANDA ALIAS RAJU SOREN v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-01-10

B.P.RAY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 1995 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as revealed from record is that the Appellant after death of his second wife, entertained a blind belief that somebody has a role to play in the death of his second wife and became anxious to know the reason. As per advise of some of the villagers, a team consisting of Bhima Soren (P.W.1-brother of the accused-Appellant), Suna and deceased Kalicharan with their respective wives, went to a sorcer at Bahadagoda. The said sorcer raised an accusing finger at the family of Kalicharan but Kalicharan refused to have any kind of involvement in the death of the second wife of the Appellant. The villagers proposed to re-test the accusation by some other sorcer and asked the deceased to pay the money spent by the Appellant. The deceased family neither consulted any other sorcer nor did they pay any money to the Appellant. Subsequent to it, the son of the Appellant also died. Following the death of his son, Appellant suspected the family of the deceased of having some hand in such death and on 6.1.1995 at about 7 P.M. just after a brief quarrel with the deceased Kartika, the Appellant dealt blows by means of a 'DAULI' to Kartika in front of his own house. Thereafter when the parents of Kartika rushed to the spot to rescue, they were also assaulted by means of the said 'DAULI' resulting in three deaths. The Appellant thereafter severed the head of the Kartika, put it in a plastic bag and surrendered before the O.I.C., Rasgobindapur Police Station along with the severed head and the weapon of offence. A Station Diary entry was made and thereafter a case having been registered, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. 3. The plea of the Appellant was complete denial of the entire prosecution case. 4. In course of trial, prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove the charge; but none was examined on behalf of the Appellant. 5. 3. The plea of the Appellant was complete denial of the entire prosecution case. 4. In course of trial, prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove the charge; but none was examined on behalf of the Appellant. 5. The Trial Court on the basis of the version of the eye-witness (P. Ws.2) and other materials available on record, found the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder. 6. Shri Nayak, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that except P.W.2, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. According to the Learned Counsel, P.W.2 also cannot be believed since she has been making different statements at different stages. The Learned Counsel for the State submitted that there is nothing in cross-examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2 and her evidence corroborates the medical evidence as well as the evidence to the effect that there has been a motive to do away with the life of the deceased persons. 7. P.W.1 is the brother of the Appellant who has turned hostile in course of examination. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Kartika and an eye-witness to the occurrence. She in her deposition, has stated that on the date of occurrence, she was with her father-in-law and mother-in-law who also died in the incident in the house at Purulia. Her husband-deceased Kartika had gone to the village just after taking the meal. Towards evening hours, she heard the shout of her husband and her parents-in-laws ran to the spot. She also followed them. She saw P.W.1 holding her husband and the Appellant dealing blows to her husband by means of a 'DAULI'. Thereafter the Appellant also killed her father-in-law and the motherin-law with the help of the same 'DAULI'. Out of fear, she rushed inside the house and shut the door. On the same night, being called by the Choukidar, she came out of the house and found the deadbodies of her husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law. But the head of the dead body of her husband was missing. She has also stated that her husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law had gone to a sorcer at Bahadagoda to know the reason of the death of the second wife of the Appellant and the said sorcer had held the deceased Kalicharan to be responsible for the death. But the head of the dead body of her husband was missing. She has also stated that her husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law had gone to a sorcer at Bahadagoda to know the reason of the death of the second wife of the Appellant and the said sorcer had held the deceased Kalicharan to be responsible for the death. In cross examination this witness has confirmed her statement made in chief and nothing has been brought out to disbelieve her testimony. P.W.3 is a Ward Member of the village and has stated that the relations of the Appellant had gone to Bahadagoda to a sorcer and the said sorcer made deceased Kalicharan responsible for the death of the second wife of the Appellant. P.W.5 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bali Soren, mother-in-law of P.W.2 and found two cut injuries and one lacerated injury which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W.6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Kartika and found the neck was cut at the vertebral level. He also found three other incised wounds on different parts of the body of the said deceased. P.W.4 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of deceased-Kalicharan. He also found two cut injuries and one incised wound over vital parts of the body of the said deceased and all the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W.7 is the officer before whom the Appellant surrendered with the severed head of deceased-Kartika-and the weapon of offence. P.W.8 is the officer who conducted the investigation. 8. On analysis of the above evidence, it appears that the testimony of the sole eye-witness to the occurrence, is corroborated by the evidence of all the three doctors who conducted post-mortem examination over the three dead bodies (husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law of P.W.2) and the deposition of P.W.7. Nothing having been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve her testimony, this Court is of the view that she is a reliable witness and her evidence can be acted upon. The submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the P.W.2 has been making different statements at different stages, is not substantiated by any evidence. We, therefore, find no force in such contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. The submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the P.W.2 has been making different statements at different stages, is not substantiated by any evidence. We, therefore, find no force in such contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Apart from the above, motive is also clearly established from the evidence of P.W.3 who has specifically stated that after the death of the second wife of the Appellant, Appellant along with the deceased family and some others had gone to a sorcer who made the deceased Kalicharan responsible for the death of the second wife of the Appellant. 9. Considering such nature of evidence, we hardly find any scope to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. B.P. Ray, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed