Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 287 (ORI)

Nadu Pangi v. State of Orissa

2015-04-25

S.K.SAHOO, VINOD PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT VINOD PRASAD, J. Challenge in this appeal by the solitary appellant Nandu Pangi is to the judgment of his conviction u/s 302 I.P.C. and order of sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/ and in default in payment of fine to serve additional six months R.I. therefor, recorded by Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No. 5 of 2005, State versus Nandu Pangi, relating to G.R.Case No. 25 of 2005, P.S.Mudulipada, district Malkangiri. 2. Shorn of insignificant trivialities and stated laconically, prosecution case against the appellant, as was testified during the Sessions trial by fact witnesses, reveal that Chaula Khilla, (herein after referred to as D2), and his wife Indra Khilla/ PW4 resided in village Kandhaguda under the local jurisdiction of Mudulipada police Station district Malkangiri and the couple had a daughter Radha Pangi(herein after referred to as D1), who had married the appellant Nandu Pangi with whom they had three daughters and a son. Appellant was illitom son-in-law and resided in the same village of D2, his father-in-law, but in a separate one bedroom house situated at the southern side of the village road at a distance of hundred feet from his in-laws residence and carried on (D2’s) agricultural activities. On the ill-fated occurrence night between 17/18.1.2005 at about 2 a.m. hearing weeping voice of their grandson, both D2 & PW4 woke up and they tramped to the house of D1 and the appellant only to witness their daughter D1 lying dead in a pool of blood and the appellant standing by her side with a Tangia. On query being made by the father, D2, as to why his daughter had been done to death, the appellant instead of replying, pushed father-in-law, D2, on the ground and dealt fatal Tangia blows on his chest causing his instantaneous death as well. The wife/widow/PW4 shrieked for help which attracted Matri Khilla, the informant/PW1, Sona Golari/PW3, Dinbandhu Golari/PW2 (the scribe of FIR), Kania Golari, Uday Khilla and many others at the incident scene who all saw present appellant accused holding a blood stained Tangia and sputtering proclaiming that he had murdered D1 & D2 and whosoever will come near will also face dire consequences of annihilation. Subsequently accused escaped from the occurrence spot. 3. Subsequently accused escaped from the occurrence spot. 3. Matri Khilla/PW1, s/o Pandu Khilla, cousin brother of D2, narrated the incident FIR arraigning the appellant as the sole perpetrator of the crime, which was taken down by Dinbandhu Golari/ PW2 and after verifying its contents that PW1 signed on it and then he carried his said FIR Ext.1 to Mudulipada police station at a distance of 18 Kms and lodged it on 18.1.2005 at 7 a.m., which was registered as crime no. 2 of 2005 u/s 302 I.P.C. 4. Jaya Soudo, O.I.C. Mudulipada police Station registered the FIR and immediately engineered the investigation, came to the incident spot and sketched site plan Ext. 8 and thereafter interrogated informant and other witnesses namely Indra Pangi, Padma Pangi, Dombu Golari, Abhi Khila, Laxman Golari, Malati Pangi, Kunia Golari, and Uday Khila, and slated down their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Between 8.45 and 9.15 a.m. inquests on the corpse of both the deceased Radha Pangi/D1 and Chaula Khila/D2 were performed and inquest memos Ext.2 & 3 were prepared and thereafter both the dead bodies were dispatched to C.H.C. Khairaput through Constable M.Dhadia for autopsy examination. Ext. 9 is the command certificate and dead body chalan is Ext. 10. Carrying further investigation I.O. collected blood stained and sample earth and inked seizure lists Ext. 4 & 5. Accused appellant was arrested from village Bandhuguda on 19.1.2005 and his statement was recorded and same day at about 10 a.m., weapon of assault ie: blood stained Tangia(M.O.I) was seized from the possession of the appellant vide seizure list Ext.7. Wearing apparels of the appellant, a check lungi(M.O.II) and a shirt (M.O.III) were also seized same day vide Ext. 6 and on production of clothes of the deceased( M.O.IV to M.O.VI) by Constable M.Dhandia, the same were seized vide seizure list Ext 11. On 28.2.2005 post mortem examination reports of both the deceased were received by the I.O. and consequently on 17.3.2005 I.O. sought expert opinion regarding Tangia to be weapon of crime vide Exts.12 & 13. Recovered exhibits were sent for chemical examination to R.F.S.L. Berhampur through S.D.J.M. Malkangiri. Ext. 13 is the letter sent to R.F.S.L. Berhampur. Completing the investigation, accused appellant was charge sheeted on 16.5.2005 u/s 302 I.P.C. 5. Post mortem examinations on both the corpses were conducted by Dr. Suman Kumar Topno/ PW8 on 18.1.2005 vide autopsy examination reports Ext. Recovered exhibits were sent for chemical examination to R.F.S.L. Berhampur through S.D.J.M. Malkangiri. Ext. 13 is the letter sent to R.F.S.L. Berhampur. Completing the investigation, accused appellant was charge sheeted on 16.5.2005 u/s 302 I.P.C. 5. Post mortem examinations on both the corpses were conducted by Dr. Suman Kumar Topno/ PW8 on 18.1.2005 vide autopsy examination reports Ext. 15(Radha Pangi) and Ext.16 (Chaula Khila). This doctor had also submitted his expert opinion regarding Tangia as weapon of assault vide Exts. 12/2 & 12/3 dated 17.3.2005, opining that injuries sustained by both the deceased could have been inflicted by the said Tangia. Concerning D1, doctor had noted that she had sustained following ante mortem injuries:- “(i) Below the angle of left mandible 3”x1”x2.5” diemension (ii) at the mastoid process of left side 1”x1”x2.5” both the injuries are grievous in nature. (iii) abrasion over the posterior aspect of right forearm 2”x 1/2”x1/2”in dimension. The said injury is simple in nature”. On internal examination pleura, cartridges of larynx, ring of trachea, were found ruptured, both the right and left lungs were congested and showed petechidial hemorrhages, right half of heart was full of clotted blood, larynx and esophagus fractured and liver, spleen and Kidney congested and showed petechial hemorrhage. Sustained injuries were ante mortem in nature and were inflicted 12 hours before. The death had ensued because of rupture of esophagus and trachea which had caused anoxia vasovagal shock combined with veins congestion and cardio respiratory failure. 6. For deceased D2, doctor found following ante mortem physical injuries on his person:- “(i) Injury over the chest wall 2” x ½” x 4” in dimension. (ii) Sternum cut longitudinally about 4” in length both the injuries were grievous in nature.” On internal examination autopsy doctor has mentioned that the blood clots on both sides of the chest wall were present, pleura was ruptured with clotted blood, larynx and trachea were congested and showed oozing of blood, rupture of cartilage of larynx was detected and rings of trachea were cut, both the right and left lungs showed hemorrhage, lung is cut and ruptured, heart is cut and ruptured and is full of clotted blood. All the above injuries are ante mortem in nature and could have been caused within 12 hours from the date of his examination. Death was caused due to cutting open of esophagus and trachea. All the above injuries are ante mortem in nature and could have been caused within 12 hours from the date of his examination. Death was caused due to cutting open of esophagus and trachea. There was anoxia with vasovagal shock due to cutting open of heart and liver. There was also venous congestion and cardio respiratory arrest leading to death. 7. After observing statutory committal formalities, appellant’s case was committed to Sessions Court for trial and the same was registered as Criminal Trial No. 5 of 2005, State versus Nandu Pangi. Ad-Hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Malkangiri charged the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C, on 15.12.2005 and since that charge was abjured, the trial of the appellant commenced. 8. Prosecution, in an effort to establish guilt of the appellant, rested its case on oral testimonies of eight witnesses and tendered seventeen papers and six material exhibits, relevant amongst those have already been mentioned herein above. Out of witnesses examined Matri Khilla/PW1 is the informant and inquest witness, Dinbadhu Golari/ PW2 is the scribe and witness of inquest on both the cadavers and had accompanied the informant to the police station to register the FIR, Sona Golari/PW3 is a witness of seizure where as Indra Khilla/PW4 is the wife of D2 and mother of D1, and mother-in-law of the appellant and she is the sole eye witness of murder of D2. Dambu Golari/ PW5, cousin brother of D1, is a witness to inquest and had accompanied the informant to the police station. Punia Golari/ PW6 is the witness of presence of the appellant at the incident spot and his proclaiming that he had committed both the murders. I.O. is PW7 and the autopsy doctor is PW8. 9. The defence of the appellant is of total denial of incriminating evidence and plea of innocence and false implication was put forth. Learned trial court found the prosecution charge against the appellant convincingly anointed and his guilt established clear of all doubts, convicted him for the charge of murder and sentenced him as noted in the opening paragraph of this judgment and hence this appeal challenging the said verdict. 10. In the above stated background, Smt. Pramila Mohanty was heard for the appellant and Sri Dilip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government advocate was heard for the respondent State and we have perused the trial court record and evidences minutely. 11. 10. In the above stated background, Smt. Pramila Mohanty was heard for the appellant and Sri Dilip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government advocate was heard for the respondent State and we have perused the trial court record and evidences minutely. 11. Castigating impugned judgment, it is harangued by appellant’s counsel that prosecution had not been able to establish motive for the crime, there is no eye witness to the murder of D1, there was no previous enmity for the appellant to commit double murder, for the annihilation of D2 there is testimony of a single eye witness whose evidence is not trustworthy, convincing and reliable, place of occurrence is disputed and medical report is incongruent and inconsistent with ocular version and therefore prosecution has failed to bring home the charge and consequently impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and appellant be acquitted and set at liberty. 12. Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate argued to the contrary as according to his submissions, conviction and sentence of the appellant are infallible and does not require any interference by this court as the prosecution had successfully established its charge and guilt of the appellant as the sole perpetrator of the crime and hence appeal sans merit and be dismissed with affirmation of impugned judgment and order. 13. Our pondering over rival contentions and scrutinizing of the trial court record makes it evident that some of the facts in this appeal are not in dispute and on those aspects, prosecution case is established convincingly. Registering admitted facts or, so to say, facts not challenged, makes it evident that relationships between the appellant and informant, deceased and the appellant has not been challenged and so is the date, time and place of the incident. Thus what is indisputable is that the appellant is the husband of D1, and son-in-law of D2 and PW4. It also remains proved that the incident had occurred in the night between 17/18 .1.2005 at 2 a.m. in village Kandhaguda, police station Mudulipoda, district Malkangiri at the residential house of the appellant as well as D1. Contention of appellant’s counsel that place of incident is in dispute is against the weight of evidence of record as we have not been able to fathom out any material to support that snipping. Contention of appellant’s counsel that place of incident is in dispute is against the weight of evidence of record as we have not been able to fathom out any material to support that snipping. Independent analysis of evidence by us indicates that informant PW1 is a post actual assault witness, but regarding date, time, place of the incident and presence of appellant holding a Tangia and asserting that he had committed murders of both the deceased and corpses of both the victims lying at the spot, he is an eye witness. Defence has not suggested any enmity to this witness to cast even the slightest doubt on his depositions which are convincing and corroborative of prosecution version. Presence of other witnesses at the spot has also been narrated by this witness who has proved his dictated FIR, Ext.1 and slating down of it by PW2. Informant/PW1 has also proved his signature on the inquest memos, Ext.2 & 3. During his cross examination, nothing contrary or of vital significance to counter prosecution claim has been got extracted by the defence, and, on the contrary, what has not been stated in examination-in-chief has got been elicited in cross examination. PW1 admits D1 being his sister and his house situated at a distance of five hundred meters away from the incident spot and in between existence of three other houses. He was made known about the first murder by PW4 arraigning the appellant as the killer soon after it had occurred and this implicates the appellant with that killing as in such a small fragment of time, it is inconceivable that a rustic old lady will be able to create a teradiddle implicating the appellant with a false charge. His entire cross examination concerns only suggestions put to him and nothing else. No challenge has been thrown to the contents of FIR and facts of the incident slated therein. Mere bald suggestions without any belying and refutable evidences to the contrary, does not makes any dent in the otherwise convincing depositions of this witness. Appellant’s counsel also failed to address us as to why we should discard the testimony of such a trustworthy witness. 14. Dinbadhu Golari/PW2, scribe of the FIR is also a co-villager and a neighbour and his house was only two houses away from the incident spot. Appellant’s counsel also failed to address us as to why we should discard the testimony of such a trustworthy witness. 14. Dinbadhu Golari/PW2, scribe of the FIR is also a co-villager and a neighbour and his house was only two houses away from the incident spot. He had arrived at incident scene immediately after the incident hearing the shrieks of Indra Khilla/ PW4, mother of D1 and wife (widow) of D2. He corroborated PW1 regarding all significant aspects of the incident including the presence of the appellant and his proclamation of his being the murderer and both the deceased lying dead at the spot. He has also narrated about the threats hurled by the appellant to act similarly if anybody approached him. He had accompanied informant to the police station and has proved his signature on the FIR as Ext. 1/2 and on inquest memos as Ext.2/2 and 3/2. He has also confirmed D1 being his Mausi(mother’s sister). Cross examination of this witness paints even a more gloomy picture as nothing worthwhile was asked to this witness and therefore defence attracts identical criticism regarding him as that of PW1. 15. Sona Golari/ PW3 is a seizure witness of recovery of blood stained earth and plain earth from the spot vide seizure lists Exts. 4, & 5, seizure of appellant’s attires (A check lungi and a half shirt) vide seizure list Ext.6, and seizure of weapon of murder, a blood stained Tangia vide seizure list Ext. 7. He has proved his signature on these lists. This witness has refuted defence suggestion that Tangia was not seized from the appellant and besides that his laconic cross examination does not bring out any other significant aspect. 16. Indra Khilla/ PW4, who is mother of D1 and wife/widow of D2 corroborated her predecessor witnesses relating to the date, time, place of incident and presence of appellant and his claiming of being the perpetrator of the crime and threats hurled by him. She further, without any blemish, has stated that the incident had occurred at 2 a.m. in the night and when she along with her husband (D2) arrived at the house of the appellant, they found their daughter lying dead in a pool of blood and the appellant was present holding a Tangia. She further, without any blemish, has stated that the incident had occurred at 2 a.m. in the night and when she along with her husband (D2) arrived at the house of the appellant, they found their daughter lying dead in a pool of blood and the appellant was present holding a Tangia. She further deposed that when her husband (D2) asked the appellant as to why he had killed Radha Pangi (D1), the appellant pushed him on the ground and dealt a Tangia blow on his chest resulting in his instantaneous death and it was only thereafter that PW4 had cried for help, which had brought the informant and other witnesses at the incident scene. She has further deposed that on being questioned by her, the appellant had stated that he had killed Radha Pangi (D1). In her cross-examination, she has stated that the house of the appellant is at a distance of 100 feet from her house and when she arrived at the appellant’s house, her daughter had already died. It was a dark night and the people had gathered hearing her crying. She in no certain terms denied the defence suggestion that the appellant had not killed her daughter and her husband and she was deposing false hood. From the statement of this witness, who was none else than mother-in-law of the appellant, the defence has failed to get elicited any statement worth the name which can even remotely demolish the prosecution charge and extricate the accused of the crime. The entire cross-examination is regarding trivial aspects having no deleterious effect on the crime committed by the appellant. In such a view, it is impossible to throw her evidence over board and assolizie the case in favour of the appellant. PW 4 though a related witness to both the deceased as the mother and the widow, but only for that reason neither her evidence can be discarded nor she can be bracketed as an untruthful witness. The too settled trite law is that merely because of relationships, the testimony of a person, who had no axe to grind against the accused, cannot be discarded and rejected. On this aspect, we refer to some of the decisions reported by the Hon’ble Apex court, which are as follows:- In Dhari and Ors. The too settled trite law is that merely because of relationships, the testimony of a person, who had no axe to grind against the accused, cannot be discarded and rejected. On this aspect, we refer to some of the decisions reported by the Hon’ble Apex court, which are as follows:- In Dhari and Ors. v. State of U. P. : AIR 2013 SC 308 , it has been held by the Apex Court as under:- “9. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.” In Mookkiah and Anr. v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu: AIR 2013 SC 321 it has been observed by the Apex Court as under:- “12. Ramaiah (PW-1), who is none else than the father-in-law of the deceased, even in his evidence has narrated before the court what he had stated in the complaint (Exh. P-1). He also identified M.O. I and M.O.II aruvals (billhooks). He further stated that with M.O. I small aruval, the accused Mookkiah was attacking and M.O. II-big aruval was used by accused Subbiah. He also noticed a pair of chappals (M.O. III), underwear (M.O. IV) near the corpse of his son-in-law. He also stated that it was he who preferred complaint to the police. The same was recorded by the Police Officer and attested by Kanaka Raj, Sudalaimuthu and Shanmugam. He also explained the statement made by Subbiah (A-2) one week prior to the incident warning him that his son-in-law called his wife for sex and he won't spare him for this. Even in lengthy cross-examination, he withstood his stand and reiterated that he along with two others saw the accused murdering his son-in-law. There is no reason to disbelieve his version. Though the trial Court has rejected his evidence because of his relationship, we are of the view that merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be eschewed. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Court to analyze his evidence cautiously and scrutinize the same with other corroborative evidence. Though the trial Court has rejected his evidence because of his relationship, we are of the view that merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be eschewed. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Court to analyze his evidence cautiously and scrutinize the same with other corroborative evidence. The High Court has rightly relied on his evidence and we fully agree with the course adopted by the High Court in relying upon his evidence.” 17. From analysis of evidence of this witness, which is in the nature of corroborative and confirming evidence of rest of the witnesses, there remain little or no doubt that it was the appellant, who had committed both the murders. No plausible defence has been pleaded by the appellant for creation of a feigned version against him by his own mother-in-law. No enmity or reason for harboring any ill feeling has been suggested to PW 4 and, therefore, we find her to be a reliable and trustworthy witness, who had narrated the entire episode without any fabrication, concoction or embellishment. There is no contradiction in her evidence as well as of predecessor witnesses confirming the prosecution allegations slated in the FIR Ext.1. 18. Turning to the evidence of Dombu Golari PW5, he was also a co-villager and like his earlier witnesses, he had also gone at the incident scene and had witnessed the appellant claiming that he had murdered D1 and D2. At that moment the appellant was holding a blood stained Tangia. Both the cadavers of D1 and D2 were spotted by him, which were lying in a pool of blood. Following day morning this witness had accompanied the informant to the Police Station to get the FIR registered. This witness is also a witness to the inquest held on both the cadavers and has proved his signatures as Exts. 2/3 and 3/3. Though he is a cousin brother of Radha Pangi (D1), but his evidence cannot be discharged only for that reason. It has been elicited during his cross examination that he has spotted the appellant from a distance of five feet and the dead bodies were lying on the verandah of the house of the appellant. He has admitted not to have stated before the I.O. that the accused was standing at the scene of occurrence with a blood stained Tangia. It has been elicited during his cross examination that he has spotted the appellant from a distance of five feet and the dead bodies were lying on the verandah of the house of the appellant. He has admitted not to have stated before the I.O. that the accused was standing at the scene of occurrence with a blood stained Tangia. He also denied the defence case that he had stated false hood. 19. Likewise Punia/Pukia Golari/PW6 a co-villager and resident of Bandhaguda has also narrated the same story. He has divulged that on interrogation PW4 had informed him that the accused had killed her daughter and the husband and at that moment the accused-appellant was standing at the spot by holding a blood stained Tangia and threatening others with dire consequence. On being permitted to ask leading question by the court, which was not objected to by the accused, PW 6 has averred that the appellant was proclaiming that he had killed his wife and father-in-law and who so ever will come to the rescue will be killed and he had heard that threat himself. He has also rejected the defence suggestion of stating false hood. No significant omission or contradiction has been found in the testimony of this witness as well which also had lend credence to the prosecution charge. 20. Jaya Gouda/PW7, who is the OIC of Muduli Pada Police Station has narrated those very investigatory facts which have already been recorded hereinabove while describing the prosecution case and, therefore, to avoid repetition, the same is not recapitulated. From his entire cross-examination it becomes evident that the appellant had proclaimed himself as the offender voluntarily. Nothing worth mentioning or worth analyzing was asked during cross-examination of this witness and, therefore, there is nothing much for us to deliberate and trot tout except mentioning that from the testimony of this witness, prosecution version further gets credence and authentication without any contradictory evidence emerging from it. 21. Dr. Suman Kumar Topno, PW 8 lends support to the prosecution case and clearly confirms that it was the recovered Tangia by which the injuries sustained by both the deceased could have been inflicted. Thus, the last nail in the coffin of defence of the accused is struck by testimony of this expert doctor, which puts a stamp of authenticity on the prosecution version. 22. Thus, the last nail in the coffin of defence of the accused is struck by testimony of this expert doctor, which puts a stamp of authenticity on the prosecution version. 22. In view of the aforesaid evidences, when the castigation by the appellant’s counsel is considered, it becomes more than apparent that none of the points raised by her has got any merit. At the outset, it is a case of an eyewitness account in respect of murder of D2, a clinching circumstantial evidence of the appellant being the killer of D1 also exists inasmuch as he was present at the spot with blood stained Tangia and claiming that he had murdered the deceased D1 and he also answered the query made by D2, when he was alive, that he had killed Randha Pangi. The cloud of doubt is obliterated on the face of such confirmed evidences that it was the appellant who had murderer D1. In such a view, the motive or mens rea was neither required to be established nor absence of it makes any inroad in the prosecution version. It is not a case of premeditation. It was for the accused to have divulged the case of premeditation for killing of D1, as was feebly suggested by the appellant’s counsel, and since that had not been done, and to the contrary, appellant had preferred, to his own peril, to keep mum therefore, his conduct does not indicate at all that it is a case, where the crime can be less than murder. Further, merely because nobody has seen the actual assault on Radha Pangi/D1, is no reason for us to reject the prosecution version and absolve the appellant of that crime for the reasons already mentioned hereinabove. Answer and proclamation by the appellant and his murderous assault on father-in-law D2 with his subsequent proclamation heard by so many persons present at the scene of the incident clearly implicates him with the murder of both the deceased and, therefore, it does not matter that none of the persons had seen assault made on Radha Pangi/D1. The incident night was mid night. But for the appellant and Radha Pangi, there does not seem to be any other person present at the incident scene except the children. The incident night was mid night. But for the appellant and Radha Pangi, there does not seem to be any other person present at the incident scene except the children. It is not the defence of the appellant that any other intruder has caused death of his wife and therefore, even applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it can be safely concluded that but for the appellant nobody else committed the murder of Radha Pangi/D1 and therefore, the criticism leveled by the counsel for the appellant that there is no eyewitness account regarding the murder of D1 is moldy and incipient and is hereby rejected out right. 23. Respecting second murder, PW4 is the sole eyewitness. The castigation that the prosecution case cannot be relied upon a single testimony, in our view, is a worthless and naff contention. Conviction on the testimony of a single witness can be recorded provided the evidence of such solitary witness is confidence inspiring, cogent, reliable and unblemished, which we find here in this appeal. The mother-in-law/widow/wife had nothing in personal for her to falsely implicate her own son-in-law in the murders of two of her closest relatives, the daughter and the husband. The defence has also not been able to suggest her any reason for her to depose falsely. In such view, the question of not accepting her testimony as being an unfaithful and un-reliable witness does not arise at all and we hereby repel the criticism leveled on this score by the appellant’s counsel. 24. Furthermore, no evidence has surfaced to doubt the place of the incident from where the blood had also been collected. On perusal of the report of the RFSL, Berhampur dated 13.07.2005 it becomes more than evident that Tangia was stained with human blood and check Lungi and shirt of the appellant also were stained with blood albeit grouping could not been done. Defence failed to offer any explanation how on the attires of the appellant blood stains were detected. Human Blood stains on the Tangia again is a clinching evidence against the appellant of his being the culprit of the crime. As already stated, no incongruency or inconsistency has occurred in the evidence of the doctor vis-a-vis ocular version and both are in conformity with each other, and there is absolutely nothing on record to opine that the same are contradictory to each other. As already stated, no incongruency or inconsistency has occurred in the evidence of the doctor vis-a-vis ocular version and both are in conformity with each other, and there is absolutely nothing on record to opine that the same are contradictory to each other. The criticism by the learned appellant’s counsel does not hold good on this score as well and is hereby rejected. 25. On an overall view, without expanding this judgment any more, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial judge for the charge of murder does not call for any interference, as the crime is too well anointed to be altered. We do not find any merit in this appeal for the aforesaid reason. 26. Before parting with the appeal we would like to observe one thing. According to the prosecution version, the appellant had committed double murder even though at a short interval, but at different times preceded by different facts and, therefore, the learned trial judge should have framed murder charges against the appellant on both the counts and should have prosecuted him for both the offences by framing two different charges and would have convicted and sentenced him separately for each of the murders. It has been noticed by us, through various judgments, that trial courts do not perform their responsibility of conducting a trial ipso jure, (according to law) assiduously. Sometimes trials are conducted in a inchoate slip shod manner. Henceforth, the learned trial judges are requested to keep in mind that for each crime the accused is required to be prosecuted and if guilt is proved they deserves to be punished for each separate offence unless the picadillo or lesser crime is a genus of graver crime and assimilated in it. Registry of this Court is directed to inform to all the trial judges about this observation, so that in future no such discrepancy occurs as in the present case. 27. Since we find this present appeal to be without any merit, we hereby dismiss the same and confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded in the impugned judgment and order. 28. The appellant is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 29. Let the trial court be informed.