Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 432 (ORI)

SUNARAM GOALA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-05-20

B.N.MAHAPATRA, L.MOHAPATRA

body2009
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. No. 180 of 1996 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. Case of the prosecution, as revealed from the record, is that the Appellant and the deceased are co-villagers being resident of village Kokerama under the Bisra Police Station in the district of Sundargarh. It is alleged that since the Appellant was suffering from colic pain continuously, he suspected the deceased to have applied witch craft on him. On 06.12.1994 when the deceased had gone to the house of one Saibani for trashing the paddy, finding her coming out from the house of the said Saibani, the Appellant attacked her by means of a Barsi and fled away from the spot. This was witnessed by small children, who shouted saying that the Appellant had killed the deceased. Hearing hullah of the children, the informant came out of his house and also found the Appellant leaving the spot with barsi being followed by his mother. The deceased had already succumbed to the injuries by then. The informant, P.W.1 thereafter came to the Police Station along with Grama Rakshi and lodged the F.I.R. Investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC and also u/s 3(1)(V) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A) Act. 3. The prosecution in order to establish the charge, examined fourteen witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant and P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased, who had immediately rushed to the spot and had seen the Appellant leaving the place of occurrence. P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest. P. Ws 4 and 5 are two children, who turned hostile. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.7 is the son-in-` of Appellant, who also turned hostile. P.W.8 is the Grama Rakhi but he also turned hostile. P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and P.W.10 is an independent witness, who stated about the fact of the Appellant surrendering before the Police in the Police Station. P.W.11 is the Photographer, who had taken photograph of the spot and P.W.12 is the Constable, who accompanied the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and P.W.10 is an independent witness, who stated about the fact of the Appellant surrendering before the Police in the Police Station. P.W.11 is the Photographer, who had taken photograph of the spot and P.W.12 is the Constable, who accompanied the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. P. Ws 13 and 14 are the Investigating Officers. The plea of defence is complete denial of prosecution case. The trial court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available on record found the Appellant guilty of the charge u/s 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder. However, he was acquitted of the charge u/s 3(1)(V) of the S.C.& (S.T. (P.A.). 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the Appellant has been convicted on suspicion, surmise and conjectures. According to the learned Counsel, there is no evidence worth credence on the basis of which an order of conviction can be based and the circumstantial evidence alleged to have been proved by the prosecution does not complete chain so as to point at the guilt of the Appellant and therefore, the Appellant should have been acquitted of the charge u/s 302 IPC also. Learned Additional Government Advocate defending the impugned judgment submitted that three circumstances proved against the Appellant not only complete a chain but also point at the guilt of the Appellant. Therefore, he has been rightly convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC. 5. Undisputedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. P.W.1 is the informant and is a post occurrence witnesses. He in his deposition has stated that hearing the shout, he came to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying dead. He admitted in his evidence that he did not know, who caused the death of the deceased. He heard from the children, who had assembled at the place of occurrence that the Appellant caused the death of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the police station and reported the matter P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. She in her deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence, she had gone in search of her mother and on the way she saw the Appellant running away after assaulting the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the police station and reported the matter P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. She in her deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence, she had gone in search of her mother and on the way she saw the Appellant running away after assaulting the deceased. The villagers raised hullah and many people had assembled at the spot. The deceased was unable to talk at that time. The entire body of the deceased was soaked with blood and she had sustained bleeding injuries on the back side of her head and both the arms above the elbow. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her testimony. In cross-examination, she has also confirmed the statement made in examination -in-chief that she had seen the Appellant running away from his back side P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest. P. Ws.4 and 5 are two school children, who were examined to prove that the Appellant after assaulting the deceased was going away from the place but both the witnesses turned hostile. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.7, who is a relative of the Appellant, also turned hostile. P.W.8 who is the Gram Rakshi also turned hostile but in examination-in-chief, he has stated that he came to the spot and noticed bleeding injury on the head of the deceased. P./w.9 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and found as many as four incised wounds on the body of the deceased. He was of the opinion that the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also examined the weapon of offence and was of the opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the said weapon. P.W.10 is an independent witness and in his presence in course of investigation, the police seized one Barsi on production by the Appellant. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve the said testimony of P.W.10. P.W.11 is the Photographer, who had taken the photograph and P.W.12 is the Constable, who had accompanied the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. P.W.13 and 14 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.14 in his deposition has stated that he seized the weapon of offence stained with blood at the police station on production by the Appellant. P.W.11 is the Photographer, who had taken the photograph and P.W.12 is the Constable, who had accompanied the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. P.W.13 and 14 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.14 in his deposition has stated that he seized the weapon of offence stained with blood at the police station on production by the Appellant. The chemical analysis report shows that the weapon of offence i.e. the Barsi and the wearing apparels of the Appellant namely, lungi and shirt were stained with human blood of 'B' group, which is the blood group of deceased. 6. On analysis of the evidence as stated above, we find that the Appellant was found going away from the place of occurrence with the weapon of offence and this was witnessed by P.W.2. The other circumstance established against the Appellant is the fact of his surrendering in the police station as deposed to by P.W.14. The third circumstance is that the Appellant while surrendering in the police station handed over the weapon of offence to P.W.14 and P.W.10, who is an independent witness, has proved the same apart from P.W.14 who is one of the I. Os. The other circumstance proved against the Appellant is his surrendered in the police station and the weapon of offence handed over by him to P.W.14 was stained with human blood of group ' B' which is the blood group of deceased. These circumstances together only point at the guilt of the Appellant. The Appellant has not explained in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. as to how human blood of group 'B' was found on his wearing apparels and the weapon of offence handed over by him to P.W.14 in presence of P.W.10. 7. Since the circumstances established by the prosecution clearly point at the guilt of the Appellant and leaves no room for doubt, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting the Appellant for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC. For the reasons stated above, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed