Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 67 (ORI)

Raghunath @ Palu Tudu v. State Of Orissa

2021-02-17

S.K.MISHRA, SAVITRI RATHO

body2021
JUDGMENT S. K. Mishra, J. - In this appeal, the sole appellant-Raghunath @ Palu Tudu assailed his conviction for commission of murder of two persons in evening of 29.07.2007 in village-Siripur. He has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "Penal Code" for brevity) by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 24.01.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 27/2008. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellant at about 7 p.m. on 29.09.2007 entered into the house of Karmi Tudu and Pana Tudu of village-Siripur and assaulted them by a knife. As a result of assault, Karmi Tudu died at the spot with a pool of blood and Pana Tudu struggle for his life having sustained severe bleeding injuries. She was taken to hospital, but on the way, she died. Informant Nabin Chandra Soren lodged F.I.R. The police thereafter, took up investigation and after taking all necessary steps for investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence took a plea of complete denial. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses, relied upon several documents as exhibits and one material object i.e. knife was produced on behalf of the prosecution. Neither any witness nor any document was marked on behalf of the defence. 5. P.W.3 Sita Soren is the solitary eye witness to the occurrence. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.1- Nabina Chandra Soren happens to be the informant of this case. He is also the all-important witness basing on whose testimony, the conviction has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. P.W.2- Laxman Hansda, P.W.4-Madan Mohan Jena and P.W.5-Sarat Chandra Tudu are the co-villagers of the appellant. P.W.6-Dr. Babaji Charan Nayak and P.W.7-Dr. Monalisa Mohanty are the two doctors who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased-Pana Tudu and Karmi Tudu. P.W.8-Dibyakanti Lakra, is the then S.I. of police and the Investigating Officer in this case. 6. As noticed earlier, the solitary eyewitness to the occurrence has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, on the basis of circumstantial evidence appearing in this case, the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. 6. As noticed earlier, the solitary eyewitness to the occurrence has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, on the basis of circumstantial evidence appearing in this case, the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The circumstantial appearing in this case is described below:- i). The homicidal nature of the death of the deceased-Pana Tudu and Karmi Tudu. It is borne out from the evidence of P.W.6-Dr. Babaji Charan Nayak and P.W.7-Dr. Monalisa Mohanty that the deaths of the deceased were homicidal in nature. No ambiguity appears in their testimonies in this regard. The learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute the homicidal nature of the deaths of the deceased. ii). The evidence of P.W.1- Nabina Chandra Soren reveals that on the date of occurrence at about 6.30 P.M. to 7 P.M. he was in his house and he heard shout from the house of Karmi and Pana. He came out and found that the appellant was emerging from the house with a knife. iii). The wearing apparels of the appellant were found i.e. deep ash colour cotton Jean full pant, one navy blue colour full Ganji and two numbers of Ash black brown mixed colour Action Shoes were found to be stained with blood of human origin though no opinion as to its origin could be given. (iv) The knife was seized in course of investigation and on chemical examination found to have been stained with human blood. (v) The objective determination of the spot of the occurrence i.e. the house of Karmi Tudu through chemical examination. Blood stains were collected from the spot were found to be human blood of "A" group the same group i.e. found on the wearing apparels of one of the deceased. 8. So from the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the unequivocal conclusion that each of the circumstance is consistent with guilt of the accused-appellant. All the circumstances taken together form a complete chain of events unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the deceased. 9. Mr. Sahoo argued that the prosecution case should be disbelieved and the appellant should be acquitted only because the solitary eye witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution and it is not permissible to rely on the circumstantial evidences. 10. 9. Mr. Sahoo argued that the prosecution case should be disbelieved and the appellant should be acquitted only because the solitary eye witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution and it is not permissible to rely on the circumstantial evidences. 10. The burden to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. The prosecution may discharge such burden by leading evidence in the shape of oral testimony of eyewitnesses, which is popularly known as direct evidence, or by circumstantial evidence. When, if in a case, both direct and circumstantial evidence are forthcoming, the failure of the prosecution to establish the case on the basis of descriptions of eye witnesses will not preclude the Court from coming to a conclusion about the case basing on the circumstantial evidence. 11. Having carefully examined the evidences available in the case and the discussions undertaken by the learned Sessions Judge, Kenojhar. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby confirmed. The L.C.R. be sent back to the concerned court below forthwith.