Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 193 (ORI)

Sakuntala Mundari v. State of Orissa

2015-03-25

S.K.SAHOO, VINOD PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J. The solitary appellant in this appeal, a lady, namely, Sakuntala Mundari was prosecuted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in C.T. Case No.41 of 2005 (State Vs. Sakuntala Mundari) for the charges under Sections 450/ 302 I.P.C. and since the learned trial court concluded that only charge of murder u/s 302 I.P.C. has been anointed convincingly and the appellant is guilty of that crime, therefore, it convicted the appellant of that offence and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) or in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. However, she was not found guilty of offence u/s 450 I.P.C. and consequently was acquitted of that crime. 2. Eschewing the trivialities of the incident and recapitulating it briefly, the incident in question occurred on 7.5.2010 at 4 p.m. in village Chidkubadi, which is at a distance of 15 Kms from the Police Station Gorumohisani, Both the deceased and the appellant are co-villagers and their houses are situated on opposite sides of village road facing each other. House of the deceased is situated on the northern side of the village road whereas house of the appellant is on the southern side. Residential houses of witnesses also lie in the same vicinity very close by. It is further alleged that on the date and time of the incident (7.5.2005 at about 4 p.m.) the deceased Sukrani Singh, mother of the informant Sakuntala Singh/ PW1 and Janki Singh/ PW3 and grandmother of Subhash Chandra Singh/ PW2, was sitting in her inner courtyard along with the son of one Basanti, who was also present in that courtyard. Informant/PW1, witness PW2, Ram Chandra, Sadhu Singh, and Madhu Singh, were also present close by. All of a sudden, the present appellant holding an axe rushed into the inner courtyard uttering “Salamananku Hani Debi”, the translation of which is “I will kill them, I will kill them”. Uttering such words, the appellant assaulted the deceased Sukurani Singh with the axe on the back of her neck. Sustaining the injuries, the deceased mother Sukurani Singh lost her life after a few minutes of the assault at that very spot. After the assault, the husband of the present appellant also came to the incident scene and took away the present appellant. While fleeing from the spot, the appellant had left her axe at the incident spot. Sustaining the injuries, the deceased mother Sukurani Singh lost her life after a few minutes of the assault at that very spot. After the assault, the husband of the present appellant also came to the incident scene and took away the present appellant. While fleeing from the spot, the appellant had left her axe at the incident spot. Since the night ensued and the police station was quite a distance of 15 KMs, that the informant/P.W.1, who was a Home Guard at the police station concerned, could not muster enough courage to approach the police station same night. However, following morning at 5 a.m., she tramped to the police station concerned where she lodged her FIR/Ext.1, on 8.5.2005 at 5 a.m., which was registered at P.S. Gorumohisani as Case NO.12 of 2005 under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The Investigating Officer Shishir Kumar Das, O.I.C. of concerned police station/P.W.8, who had registered the crime, commenced the investigation immediately, recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant and then came to the incident scene where he sketched site plan and then snapped three photos of the cadaver of the deceased, which are material objects II, III & IV. Inquest on the dead-body of the deceased was then performed and inquest memo Ext 2 was penned down and thereafter the dead body was dispatched to S.D. Hospital Rairangpur for postmortem examination. Weapon of offence i.e. the axe (budia) M.O.I, which was lying at the spot, was seized and seizure memo thereof was prepared. Blood-stained and plain earth were also seized from the sport vide Ext.3. Appellant thereafter was arrested at 10 a.m. and at 12 noon, she was dispatched to Medical Officer, Gorumohisani P.H.C. for medical examination. Nail clippings of the accused as well as hand-wash and blood samples of the accused were also taken. One saree, one saya and a blouse of the accused were seized vide Ext.7. Finger print was also taken and the accused was forwarded to the Magistrate on 9.5.2005 at 8 a.m. At 10 a.m. wearing apparels of the deceased were seized along with Command Certificate. Ext.6 is the seizure list. On 25.5.2005, the autopsy report was received and on the same day, the medical report of the accused along with the weapon was sent for query to the Medical Officer, Rairangpur. On the same day, the opinion of the doctor to the query was received. Ext.6 is the seizure list. On 25.5.2005, the autopsy report was received and on the same day, the medical report of the accused along with the weapon was sent for query to the Medical Officer, Rairangpur. On the same day, the opinion of the doctor to the query was received. On 13.6.2005, exhibits were sent for chemical examination through S.D.J.M, Rairangpur vide Ext.8. Chemical examiner’s report is Ext.9. Wrapping up the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted on 17.8.2005 under Sections 302/450 I.P.C. 4. In observing due process of Sessions trial procedure, case of the appellant was committed to the Sessions Court where it was registered as C.T. No.41 of 2005, State Vs. Sakuntala Mundari, in which learned trial Judge vide order dated 3.2.2006 charged the appellant with offences under Sections 450 & 302 I.P.C. but since she abjured both the charges, that she was prosecuted of those crimes. As stated earlier, for the former offence under Section 450 I.P.C, appellant was acquitted, but she was found guilty for the offence of murder and therefore was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) and in default to serve simple imprisonment for one month. 5. Eight prosecution witnesses were examined in the trial , out of whom, Sakuntala Singh informant/PW1, Subash Chandra Singh grandson/ PW2, Janaki Singh, another daughter of the deceased/ PW3, Ram Chandra Mundari/ PW4, and Baidyanath Mundari/ PW5 were the fact witnesses. Autopsy doctor is P.W.6, constable Nitrananad Singh is PW7 and the I.O is PW8. In her defence, the appellant has examined Hua Mundari/ D.W.1. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have heard Sri Arjun Ch. Behera, learned counsel in support of the appeal and Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. At the very outset, we would like to record here that the defence of the appellant is that in fact, the murder of the deceased was committed on the same date, time and place not by the present appellant but by her husband who, after assaulting the deceased had escaped from the spot and could not be apprehended and therefore the present appellant was arraigned as accused and real perpetrator of the crime. Thus, what is illuminatingly evident is that substantial part of prosecution story regarding date, time and place of the incident and the weapon of assault all are not in dispute. The trite too well-settled law is that the facts admitted need not be proved and hence concerning above aspects, the prosecution, in our opinion, was absolved of its primary duty to prove those facts. Ostensibly, and it seems that because of the aforesaid reason, that the defence counsel had also not challenged these pivotal and significant aspects of the occurrence by cross-examining all the fact witnesses on that score. 8. The autopsy report of the deceased, which was conducted by the doctor Prsanjeet Kar/P.W.6, indicates sustaining of following physical injuries by the deceased on her torso:- (i) Lacerated injury of size 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the back of the neck on the upper part. (ii) Lacerated injury 4 c.m. x 4c.m. x 3 c.m. on the left side of neck in the lower part with fracture of clavicle. (iii) Lacerated injury 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the upper part of chest on the right side. (iv) Lacerated injury of size 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the right side of neck 4 c.m. below right ear. (v) Lacerated injury of size 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the scalp above the right ear with fracture of an underlying bone. On dissection, the doctor/PW.6, detected that there was facture of skull bone of right side, parietal and temporal bone with profuse intracranial haemorrhage. Thorax, lungs and heart were in tact. Abdomen, liver, spleen, kidney in tact, uterus small in size, stomach contents 200 mls of partially digested food. Cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were inflicted by hard object with sharp cutting edged weapon and 24 hours had lapsed since the deceased had demised. The sustained injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, which were possible by axe M.O.I. Ext. 4 is the autopsy report of the doctor. The opinion of the doctor regarding the weapon of assault being sufficient to cause sustained injuries is Ext.5. The sustained injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, which were possible by axe M.O.I. Ext. 4 is the autopsy report of the doctor. The opinion of the doctor regarding the weapon of assault being sufficient to cause sustained injuries is Ext.5. In essence, above narrated evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the deceased met with a homicidal death because of the assault by M.O.I and hence her death has to be bracketed as murder. 9. Further, from the record, we find that so far as the fact witnesses are concerned, neither P.W.1, who is the daughter of the deceased and was a Home Guard at the same police station, nor her sister P.W.3-Janaki Singh had any reason at all to frame a story against the present appellant if her husband, in fact, even according to the appellant’s case, was the real murderer. Why the husband was spared and the lady was implicated is not understandable. The defence of the accused that because the husband escaped from the spot, therefore, the wife was implicated is too incipient a contention to be given a thought. We, hereby reject such a submission out right. 10. The incident occurred in broad day light inside the house of the deceased. No challenge to the place of the incident has been made, which is too well-cemented by the presence of the blood at the spot and the blood-stained axe which is said to be the weapon of assault found at the incident scene. 11. In view of aforesaid, the only relevant question to be answered is as to whether the present appellant had committed the crime or not? In this respect, weighing of the cross-examination of all the fact witnesses does not indicate any material even howsoever trivial it may be to indicate that there was any reason for the prosecution to nail the present appellant as the real perpetrator of the murder. She is named in the F.I.R as the real assailant. In the cross-examination a feeble attempt was made by the defence to indicate that the present appellant was not mentally sick but because her husband had eloped from the spot after assaulting the deceased, that she has been falsely implicated. She is named in the F.I.R as the real assailant. In the cross-examination a feeble attempt was made by the defence to indicate that the present appellant was not mentally sick but because her husband had eloped from the spot after assaulting the deceased, that she has been falsely implicated. Mere bald suggestion on these scores without laying down any foundation whatsoever for it does not inspire any confidence and therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that probably the defence had not enough reasons to challenge the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, which is trustworthy and confidence inspiring and which cannot be thrown over board on trivialities. In view of the aforesaid, none of the fact witnesses examined by the prosecution can be said to have divulged a fake story. Prosecution version in such view is too well cemented. The prosecution story also gets credence from the autopsy report and the testimony of the doctor. It was during the cross-examination that the defence has got it elicited from the autopsy doctor that the weapon of assault M.O.I could have caused cut injuries on the body of the deceased. In such a view, the prosecution case is too well proved to be doubted for any reason. 12. Without burdening this judgment, we are of the opinion that the present appeal lacks merit and resultantly is hereby dismissed. 13. The appellant’s conviction and sentence through the impugned judgment and order is hereby confirmed. Appellant, who is in jail, shall remain in jail to serve out the remaining part of her sentence. Appeal dismissed. 14. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Judge for its information.