Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 428 (ORI)

Achuta Sahu v. State of Orissa

2017-04-19

S.N.PRASAD, S.PANDA

body2017
JUDGMENT S.PANDA, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 91 of 1998 in convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that the appellant was desirous of marrying the deceased. He has expressed such fact before many persons including P.W. 1 and P.W.2, to whom he had also expressed the fact that the deceased should marry him or else he would abduct and kill her. However, the marriage of the deceased was fixed with someone else. The appellant having coming to know about such fact, on 06.11.1997 at about 11 A.M. to 12 Noon, when the parents of the deceased were absent, he suddenly entered inside the house of the deceased. At that time the deceased was grinding the rice in a grinding stone. The appellant caught hold of her and forcibly poured the liquid substance contained in the bottle inside the mouth of the deceased. At the time of occurrence, Kanhai intervened, but the accused gave him a push. Souri Majhi, P.W. 3, who is the granddaughter of Kanhai is also the witness to the occurrence. She laid the deceased on the bed and gave lemon water and tamarind water to the deceased in order to have vomiting and sent her brother Prasanta to call the parents of the deceased. When the parents of the deceased rushed to the house, P.W. 3 disclosed the entire occurrence. The parents of the deceased found their daughter lying in a subconscious state and not able to speak freely. They took her to the hospital, where she was declared dead. Father of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. at the Police Station scribed by P.W. 2. The same was registered and the I.O. took up investigation. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He visited the spot and searched the house of the appellant on the next day of occurrence, but the appellant was not available. The wearing apparels of the deceased and the empty bottle emitting pungent smell of pesticide also seized. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He visited the spot and searched the house of the appellant on the next day of occurrence, but the appellant was not available. The wearing apparels of the deceased and the empty bottle emitting pungent smell of pesticide also seized. During the post-mortem examination, the Medical Officer had collected viscera of the deceased, which was also sent by the I.O. along with the seized empty bottle as well as the frock put on by the deceased for Chemical examination. The appellant surrendered at Rairakhol Police Station on 13.11.1997 and taken to custody. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted finding sufficient evidence against the appellant ot have committed offence under Sections 302 I.P.C. 3. The appellant’s defence plea was one of complete denial and according to him the appellant and the deceased were in love with each other, but when her desire could not be materialized, she committed suicide taking poison and examined one witness. 4. In order to bring home the charge, during trial the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses including P.W. 1 who is the circumstantial witness and stated about the previous conduct of the appellant, P.W. 2 the scriber of the F.I.R. and P.W. 4 the other circumstantial witness, who also stated about the previous conduct of the appellant. The prosecution also examined P.W. 3, he witness to the occurrence. It also exhibited 10 documents including post-mortem report under Ext. 4 and Chemical Examination Report under Ext. 10. On the other hand, the defence examined one witness and exhibited no documents. The prosecution also proved two Material Objects, i.e. M.O.I. the Frock of the deceased and M.O. II, the Bottle. Kanhei died before his examination in Court. 5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the materials available on record came to a conclusion that the death is homicidal in nature on the basis of the statement of eye witness-P.W.3, circumstantial evidence, the post-mortem report, the inquest report and the Chemical Examination Report and found that the appellant had killed the deceased. The Trial Court convicted the present appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 6. Mr. The Trial Court convicted the present appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is based on surmises and conjectures. According to him, there is no material to connect the appellant with the crime and the so called seizure and confession are result of police atrocities. There is no animosity leading existence of any motive for commission of such offence. The conviction is based on suspicion and according to him, the suspicion how strong may be, cannot be the sole basis of conviction. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is illegal and liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel strongly contended that the evidence of the eye witness P.W. 3 was very clear and the said statement has been found support from statements made by other witnesses like P.W. 1 and 4 and circumstances available on record. The post-mortem report and the Chemical Examination Report, corroborates the evidence of P.W.3. Therefore, the sentence imposed on the appellant has been properly assessed by the Trial Court and as such, the same calls for no interference by this Court. 8. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. It appears that the prosecution has basically founded its case on the basis of the statement of the eye witness P.W. 3 and also the statements of the witnesses of P.W. 1 and 4, who have deposed about the pre-occurrence confession of the appellant. All such statements get support from the post-mortem examination as well as Chemical Examination report. 9. P.W. 1, deposed in his examination-in-chief that he know both the accused and deceased. He used to tie Kendu Leaves along with the appellant and others. While binding the leaves the appellant had told them that he would kill the deceased, if she would be given marriage to other person excepting him. In his cross-examination he had stated that the house of the father of the deceased-Ganga Majhi, Kanhei Majhi and Bipin Majhi esist in one block. While binding the leaves the appellant had told them that he would kill the deceased, if she would be given marriage to other person excepting him. In his cross-examination he had stated that the house of the father of the deceased-Ganga Majhi, Kanhei Majhi and Bipin Majhi esist in one block. At the time of such declaration of the appellant about killing of the deceased, all who were binding the Kendu Leaves including the employees of Forest Department have heard such thing. 10. P.W.2, the scriber of the FIR had deposed in his examination-in-chief that at the noon when he was returning from his land, on his way, one Chittaranjan Sahu came and told him that the appellant was trying to take away the deceased by force, so they have to go to help her. Subsequently his brother-in-law told that the appellant forcibly administered poison to the deceased. On the instruction of his brother-in-law, namely Gangadhar Majhi, he scribed the report and after knowing the contents thereof, Gangadhar Majhi put his signature. 11. P.W. 6, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body found as follows:- a. The body was stout, pale face, eyes closed, mouth half open, pupil diluted, hands half closed and rigormortis in all limbs present. b. There was greenish discharge from the nose and mouth. c. There was no injury over the body or mark of ligature on the neck. d. The cranium and spinal canal were intact. e. Greenish fluid was present inside the stomach. According to him the cause of the death of the deceased is due to poisoning. He preserved the viscera of the deceased and handed over the same to the police for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner’s Report marked in the case as Ext. 9 wherein the finding of the chemical examiner is as follows:- “One frock marked as ‘B’ with green yellow prints. Result of examination: An organophos-phorous insecticidal poison was detected in both the exhibits marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’ which tally with each other and the poison detected in viscera.” 12. P.W. 4, another post-occurrence witness has also supported the prosecution case. His evidence corroborated the other materials on record regarding his presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence and taking the deceased to the Hospital. P.W. 4, another post-occurrence witness has also supported the prosecution case. His evidence corroborated the other materials on record regarding his presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence and taking the deceased to the Hospital. He has also stated that the marriage of the deceased was not settled against her will and the disclosure of the appellant about his desire to marry the deceased. 13. P.W. 3, the eye witness to the occurrence had vividly stated in her examination-in-chief regarding the overt act of the appellant and she disclosed immediately all those facts before the informant P.W. 7, the father of the deceased. The statements of P.W. 4, P.W. 7 and the statement made in the F.I.R. also corroborated the statement of P.W. 3. Nothing found on record to demolish such substantial evidence of P.W. 3. 14. On close scrutiny of the evidences on record, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is the author of the crime. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that at best it is a case of suicide has no substance. In such background, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 15. The appellant was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.03.2004. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bail bond so furnished be cancelled and the appellant be taken into custody forthwith. Appeal dismissed.