Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 548 (ORI)

Ananda Patra v. State of Orissa

2010-08-04

PRADIP MOHANTY, S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : The appellant having been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge,Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 18 of 1996 has preferred this criminal appeal from Jail. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecu¬tion, as unfolded during trial, is that on 19.11.1995 at about 5.00 p.m. the informant Binod Patra (P.W.7) appeared before Kaliahata Out-post and reported orally that on that day in the morning he and his brothers, namely, Ananda Patra, Sananda Patra and Rasa Patra and other family members were engaged in reaping paddy. They were informed at about 9.00 a.m. that the accused was dealing blows with a Budia (small axe) on the deceased Bramhani Patra on the sugarcane field of one Sarat Naik. Getting this information, Ananda, Sananda, Rasa Patra and others went to the spot. They found the deceased lying with severe bleeding injuries in the sugarcane field and groaning with pain and she was unable to talk. P.W.4 Masala Naik and P.W.5 Jaitri Naik also disclosed to have been the accused dealing blows with a Budia on the de¬ceased. The accused was searched for but could not be traced. The deceased was shifted to Kaliahata hospital but on the way she succumbed to the injuries and breathed her last. The A.S.I. of police, in-charge of Kaliahata Out-post reduced the report to writing and after preliminary investigation forwarded the FIR to Telkoi P.S. for registration. On receipt of the FIR, the OIC, Telkoi P.S. registered the case, took up investigation and after its completion submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial of the allegations. His specific plea is that due to land dispute he has been falsely implicated. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses including the I.Os. and the doctor and exhibited eighteen documents. The defence has examined none. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar after conclusion of the trial found the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprison¬ment for life basing upon the eye witness account of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 coupled with the medical evidence of P.W.12. 6. Mr. The defence has examined none. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar after conclusion of the trial found the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprison¬ment for life basing upon the eye witness account of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 coupled with the medical evidence of P.W.12. 6. Mr. Barik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (i) P.W.3 Ahalya Patra is not a witness to the occurrence. In fact, Anajali Patra was a witness to the occurrence and she having been withheld, the prosecution is guilty of suppression of material witness. (ii) P.Ws. 4 and 5 are interested witnesses and as such their evidence is not trustworthy when admittedly there is land dispute between the accused and these witnesses. (iii) No motive has been proved by the prosecution. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and vehemently contends that evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3,4 and 5 is very clear, cogent and convincing and there is nothing on record to disbelieve them. Their evidence gets corroboration from the FIR as well as the medical evidence of P.W.12. It is established through the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 that the weapon of offence, i.e., Budia (M.O.I) was recovered from the verandah of the house of the accused. The chemical examination report reveals that M.O.I. contained blood of human origin and no expla¬nation in that regard has been given by the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any illegal¬ity or impropriety in convicting the accused. 8. Keeping the rival submissions of the parties in view, this Court examined the oral and documentary evidence available on record. P.W.3 is the grand daughter of the deceased. In her evidence she specifically deposed that on the date of occurrence, while returning from the paddy field, she saw the accused dealing blows with a Budia (axe) on the deceased in the sugarcane field of Sarat Naik. After dealing the blows, the accused went way. She ran away and called her father. Both of them came to the spot and shifted the deceased to their house and from there to Kaliahata hospital. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discard her testimony. After dealing the blows, the accused went way. She ran away and called her father. Both of them came to the spot and shifted the deceased to their house and from there to Kaliahata hospital. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discard her testimony. Rather, by way of cross-examination the defence has brought out from her mouth that she had seen the accused dealing blows with an axe to the hand of the deceased. P.W.4 is a co-villager of the accused as well as the deceased and is an independent witness. She deposed that at the time of occur¬rence she was washing cloth in the village tank. She saw the accused proceeding on the tank embankment/ridge towards the field. A while after, she heard the shouts of the deceased, climbed up the ridge and saw the accused dealing blows indiscriminately with a Budia (axe) on the deceased in the sugar¬cane field. Seeing that, she ran to her house and reported the matter to Sarat Naik, the elder brother of her husband. Her evidence has remained unshaken despite thorough cross-examination. Rather, it has been brought out by the defence by way of cross-examination that she had seen the accused dealing blows indiscriminately to different parts of the body of the deceased and out of fear she ran away. P.W.5 corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 and specifically stated that while she was taking bath in the village tank she heard cries of the deceased, immediately got up to the ridge of the village tank and saw the accused dealing blows by a Budia (axe) on the deceased. P.W.7 is the informant who having heard the incident from P.W.3 rushed to the spot. There he saw the deceased lying on the land of Sarat Naik having cut injuries on her hand, shoulder, head and neck. He also saw that the deceased was gasping and at the last stage of her life. He along with others immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital but on the way she succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, he went to Kaliahata Out-post along with the Grama Rakhi (P.W.11) and orally reported the incident to the police. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest and proved the inquest report (Ext.3). P.W.8 is Ananda Patra, who was engaged in reaping paddy with Binod Patra (P.W.7) and on being informed by P.W.3 rushed to the spot. Thereafter, he went to Kaliahata Out-post along with the Grama Rakhi (P.W.11) and orally reported the incident to the police. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest and proved the inquest report (Ext.3). P.W.8 is Ananda Patra, who was engaged in reaping paddy with Binod Patra (P.W.7) and on being informed by P.W.3 rushed to the spot. He deposed in the same line as P.W.7. He is also a witness to the inquest and seizure of M.O.I. He proved the sei¬zure list (Ext.5) and the inquest report (Ext.3). P.W.9 is a witness to the seizure of the clothes of the accused vide seizure list (Ext.6) and proved it. P.W.10 is the A.S.I. of police then attached to Kaliahat Out-post. He stated to have reduced the oral report of Binod Patra (P.W.7) to writing, reported the matter to OIC, Telkoi P.S., seized M.O.I. vide Ext. 5, examined some of the witnesses and made over the charge of investigation to the OIC, Telkoi P.S. He proved the written report (Ext.4) and the seizure list Ext. 5. P.W. 11 is the Grama Rakhi. He is a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased and proved the seizure list Ext.8. P.W.12 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: External injuries “(i) Incised wound over forehead above the left eye of 1” x 1/2". (ii) Incised wound over the scalp posterior to left ear of size 2" x 1/2". (iii) 3 incised wounds over left shoulder of size 2" X 1/2", 1 1/2" x 1/2", 2" x 1/2". (iv) Deep incised wound over left thigh 2" x 1" (v) Two abrasions on left eye. (vi) Right arm, causing complete fracture of humerus (vii) Multiple bruises over shoulder above left clavicle. (viii) Bruise of 3" x 2" on the back. Internal injuries Incised wound of 3" x 1" on the scalp posterior to left ear over mastoid bone. Membrains in tact. Brain and spinal cord engorged. Larynx and trachea filled with frothy bloods. Right lung congested, left lung pale. Bruise and injury to the muscles of right arm and fracture of the right humerus. Incised wound of 2" x 1/2" on the scalp posterior to left ear exposing left mas¬toid bone.” He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Larynx and trachea filled with frothy bloods. Right lung congested, left lung pale. Bruise and injury to the muscles of right arm and fracture of the right humerus. Incised wound of 2" x 1/2" on the scalp posterior to left ear exposing left mas¬toid bone.” He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death was due to the injury over the mastoid bone and over other multiple sides (sic) of the body leading to haemorrhage and shock. He also opined that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be possible by the axe. He proved the postmortem report Ext.9 and his report Ext.10. P.W.13 is the Police Officer who was then working as OIC,Telkoi P.S. He took charge of the investigation from P.W.10, prepared the spot map (Ext.11), arrested the accused, held inquest over the dead body, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot as well as the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased, forwarded the seized articles to the Scientific Offi¬cer, S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and on closure of investigation submit¬ted charge-sheet against the accused. P.W.2 is the police consta¬ble, who was then attached to Kaliahata Out-post and carried the dead body to Telkoi hospital for postmortem examination. He proved the command certificate Ext. 2. P.W.1 is the Scientific Officer, who examined the axe (M.O.I), the wearing apparels of the accused as well as the deceased, blood stained earth, sample earth, etc., and proved his report Ext.1. 9. From the analysis of the evidence as made above, it is crystal clear that P.Ws. 3,4 and 5 are witnesses to the occurrence. They have categorically deposed to have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased by means of a Budia (small axe) by dealing successive blows. The substratum of their evidence has not been shaken to discredit their veracity. Despite suggestion, the defence has not been able to bring out anything to establish that P.Ws. 4 and 5 are inimically disposed towards the appellant and as such are interested witnesses. Rather, they being co-villagers of the deceased and the appellant, are independent witnesses. The substratum of their evidence has not been shaken to discredit their veracity. Despite suggestion, the defence has not been able to bring out anything to establish that P.Ws. 4 and 5 are inimically disposed towards the appellant and as such are interested witnesses. Rather, they being co-villagers of the deceased and the appellant, are independent witnesses. Non-examination of Anjali Patra is not fatal to the prosecution, because it is open to the prosecution to make a fair and honest selection when the occurrence is witnesses by a number of witnesses.The evidence of P.W.12, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, corroborated the testimony of ocular witnesses. Taking into consideration the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 coupled with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.12), this Court arrives at the conclusion that it is the appellant who committed murder of the deceased. 10. Therefore, the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. S.K. MISHRA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.