Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 317 (ORI)

Bhagirathi Sahu v. State of Orissa

2012-07-27

B.K.MISRA, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2012
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2003 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sonepur in S.C. No.15/17 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, the present appeal has been preferred. 2.The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant having been charge-sheeted under Section 302, IPC was facing his trial in the Court of learned Addl.Sesions Judge, Sonepur. The allegation against him was that on 04.10.2001 at about 1.00 P.M. he committed murder of the deceased Ranjan (the four years’ son of the informant P.W.1) by inflicting axe blows on his neck. During trial the appellant took the plea of denial and false implication. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined as many as 12 witnesses including two doctors and the I.O. and exhibited 16 documents including the post mortem report and chemical examination report. The defence examined none. The learned trial Judge on assessment of the evidence adduced before him convicted the appellant for commission of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life mainly relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and other incriminating circumstances on record. 3.This Court carefully considered the argument advanced by Mr. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Zafuralla, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. This Court also meticulously went through the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 4.Going through the oral testimony of the witnesses this Court noticed that father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1. He is the informant of this case. His evidence is that on 04.10.2001 afternoon at about 1.00 PM he and his son (deceased) took meal together. The deceased after taking his meal left for playing and he continued to take meal. After some time, his younger brother P.W.2 came running and shouted that accused had killed his son. He came out and found the dead body of his son lying on the village road. So, immediately he and his brother chased the accused, caught hold of him and brought him to the village. He further deposed that on being confronted the accused confessed that he had killed his son. He came out and found the dead body of his son lying on the village road. So, immediately he and his brother chased the accused, caught hold of him and brought him to the village. He further deposed that on being confronted the accused confessed that he had killed his son. Then, he lodged the FIR (Ext.1) consequent upon which police came to the spot, held inquest over the dead body in his presence. Ext.2 is the inquest report and Ext.2/1 is his signature. He specifically stated that there were five cut injuries on the body of his son. In cross-examination nothing has been elicited from P.W.1 to demolish his evidence. P.W.2 is the co-villager of the deceased as well as the accused. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on the fateful day at about 1.00 PM when he came out of his house he found the accused inflicting axe blows to the neck of the deceased by holding his neck. When he challenged the accused as to why he was assaulting the deceased, the accused threw the axe and ran away to his house. Then he shouted hearing which P.W.3, the uncle of the deceased, reached at the spot. Seeing the incident, P.W.3 went to call P.W.1 and subsequently tried to catch hold of the accused. After some time P.Ws.1 and 3 caught hold of the accused and came to the spot. Subsequently, police came to the spot and conducted inquest over the dead body and sent it for the post-portem. Ext.2/2 is his signature in the inquest report (Ext.2). On being confronted, he admitted to have stated before the I.O. that the accused ran away to his house with the axe. In cross-examination he admitted that the house of the accused and his house situated near the spot. He further admitted that when P.W.3 rushed to the spot on being called by him, the accused ran on the village road and that when he approached the accused, he ran away from the village. He also admitted that the accused having caught hold of the deceased like a cock inflicted axe blows on his neck for five times. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to discard his evidence. P.W.3 stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was sitting in the ‘Dharmasala’ of his village. He also admitted that the accused having caught hold of the deceased like a cock inflicted axe blows on his neck for five times. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to discard his evidence. P.W.3 stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was sitting in the ‘Dharmasala’ of his village. Hearing ‘hullah’ of P.W.2, he rushed to the spot and found the accused inflicting cut blows to his nephew (deceased) and seeing him, the accused ran away. He went to the house of P.W.1 and called him. P.W.1 came to the spot and saw the dead body. Then he and P.W.1 chased the accused, caught hold of him and brought him to the spot. In cross-examination he deposed that ‘Dharmasala’ stands at a distance of 50 feet from the place of occurrence. He admitted that from a distance of about 10 feet he saw the accused being armed with an axe. P.W.4 is a co-villager of both the accused and the deceased. He testified that on the occurrence day hearing cry of a baby he came out of his house and finding the accused running away he caught his hand and asked him where he was running away but the accused gave him a push and fled away. Thereafter, he went to the spot and found the deceased lying dead with five cut injuries. He also stated that the dead body was in front of the house of P.W.2 at a distance of 15 cubits. P.W.2 narrated the incident to him. P.W.5 is another co-villager from whom P.Ws.1 and 3 took bi-cycle for chasing the accused. P.W.6 i also a co-villager and is a witness to the seizure of axe (M.O.I.), wearing apparels of the accused and also bloodstained earth and proved his signatures marked as Exts. 3/1, 4/1 and 5/1. The evidence of P.W.7 is that on the date of incident hearing ‘hullah’ he came out of his house and found the accused running away at a distance of about 100 meters from him. P.W.8 is the doctor who examined the accused on the police requisition. P.W.9 is the Constable of police then attached to Gania Outpost. On being commanded he guarded the dead body, escorted the same to the hospital for post-mortem examination and identified it to the doctor. P.W.8 is the doctor who examined the accused on the police requisition. P.W.9 is the Constable of police then attached to Gania Outpost. On being commanded he guarded the dead body, escorted the same to the hospital for post-mortem examination and identified it to the doctor. He stated to be a witness to the seizure of command certificate (Ext.7) and the wearing apparels of the deceased under the seizure list (Ext.8) and proved his signature marked Ext.8/1. P.W.10 is a doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries :- “(1) Cut injury (chop. wound) of seize 2” x ½” x 1½” below the chin along the line of mandible with muscles and vessels torn (bevelled lower flap). (2) Cut injury (chop. wound) 2” x ½” x 1½” transversely placed below the laryngeal cartilage with cutting of trachea and vessels. (3) Cut injury 2” x ½” x ½” transversely placed over right side of the neck on the anterior aspect with cutting of grate vessels 1” below the injury No.2. (4) Cut injury (chop. wound) 2” x ½ x 2” over nape of the neck on the middle and right side with cutting of vessels vertebral column and spinal cord and the level of junction of C-6 and C-7 vertebra (transversely cut). (5) Cut injury 2” x 1/3rd x 1/2” tranversely cut over nape of neck at the level of junction of C-7 and C-8 vertebra. He opined that the death was due to multiple cut injuries over the neck cutting the trachea, great vessels, spinal cord and vertebral column leading to haemorrhage and shock. He also opined that all the above injuries were ante mortem in nature and the death of the deceased was homicidal. He further opined that the incised wounds found on the deceased could be caused by the axe (M.O.I.) produced before him by police for examination. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext.9) and opinion report (Ext.10). P.W.12 is the A.S.I. of police who stated that after receiving the message over VHF about the occurrence he made a station dairy entry and proceeded to the spot where P.W.1, the father of the deceased, presented the F.I.R. On receipt of the F.I.R. he took up investigation, conducted inquest over the dead body and directed the constable (P.W.9) to guard the dead body and the accused. On the same day, the C.I. of Police took charge of investigation from him. P.W.11. is the C.I. of Police, Sonepur. He stated that on 04.10.2001 he took charge of investigation of the case from the A.S.I. (P.W.12), examined the witnesses, arrested the accused from the spot, seized the bloodstained earth, sample earth under Ext. 4 and also seized the wearing apparels of the accused under Ext.5, sent the accused to Binka C.H.C. for medical examination and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He prepared the spot map through R.I. Meghala and sent the wearing apparel of the accused for chemical examination to S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar through S.D.J.M., Sonepur. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC. In cross-examination he admitted that first the A.S.I. (P.W.12) reached at the spot and took up investigation. Thereafter, on getting information over VHF he proceeded to the spot. By that time the A.S.I. had already received the F.I.R., conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared documents to despatch the dead body for post mortem. In cross-examination he also admitted that after reaching the spot he found the accused lying on the main road near the spot being tied by a rope and he arrested the accused from there. 5.From above analysis of evidence, it appears that P.W.2 is an independent witness. Apart from being a co-villager of the accused and the deceased, he is a neighbour of the accused. The occurrence had taken place in front of his house. According to him on the date of occurrence after taking his lunch when he came out of his house he saw the accused inflicting axe blows to the neck of the deceased holding him like a cock. He challenged the accused as to why he was assaulting the deceased and raised ‘hullah’. Hearing his ‘hullah’ when uncle of the deceased (P.W.3) reached at the spot and shouted, the accused fled away. P.W.3 has not only corroborated this part of evidence of P.W.2 but also claimed to have seen the assault by the accused. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that, the accused ran away after inflicting axe blows to the deceased, gets support from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that, the accused ran away after inflicting axe blows to the deceased, gets support from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7. Both of them have stated that they found the accused running away and on coming to the spot found the deceased lying dead. Furthermore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that, while the accused was running away they chased and caught hold of him by taking a bi-cycle from P.W.5, is supported by P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 is that after taking bath at Chouki Nala while he was returning, he saw the accused running away towards the said Nala and he gave his cycle to P.Ws.1 and 3 in order to catch hold the accused. P.W.2 in cross-examination has particularly stated that the accused gave five axe blows on the neck of the deceased. The doctor (P.W.10), who conducted autopsy over the dead body found five cut injuries on the person of the deceased. So, the ocular testimony of P.W.2 gets corroboration from the medical evidence. The weapon of offence, i.e., the axe, which was seized from the accused, was produced before the doctor (P.W.10) for examination and he joined that the injuries could be caused by that axe (M.O.I.). In the wearing apparels of the accused sent for chemical examination human blood was detected and no explanation has been put forth by the accused how the blood of human origin came to his wearing apparels. 6.In view of the reasons indicated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed being bereft of merits. B.K. MISRA, J.I agree. Appeal dismissed.