High Court Of Orissa
SUSANTA CHATTERJI, R. K. PATRA
BHIKARI BEHERA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 109 Of 1989
Decided On : 04/05/1995
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 304 PART-II I. P. C. - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - DELAY IN EXAMINATION OF WITNESS - INQUEST REPORT - DELAY IN DISPATCHING F. I. R. - DEFENCE PLEA.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for murder and causing death by negligence. They challenged their conviction, arguing lack of motive, non-examination of independent witnesses, delay in examining a witness, non-mention of assailants' names in the inquest report, delay in dispatching the F.I.R., and a weak defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a clear motive for the crime, as stated in the F.I.R. The non-examination of independent witnesses was not fatal, as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was found to be reliable. The delay in examining a witness was explained by the Investigating Officer, and the witness's injuries corroborated her testimony. The court also held that the inquest report is limited in scope and does not include details of the assault or assailants. The delay in dispatching the F.I.R. was not significant, as it was promptly forwarded on the same day. The defense plea was found to be an afterthought and not believable.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the crime? 2. Whether the non-examination of independent witnesses affected the reliability of the prosecution case? 3. Whether the delay in examining a witness tainted her evidence? 4. Whether the non-mention of assailants' names in the inquest report cast doubt on the prosecution case? 5. Whether the delay in dispatching the F.I.R. rendered the prosecution case unsustainable? 6. Whether the defense plea was credible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and its absence does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the evidence is unreliable. 2. The evidence of partisan witnesses can be relied upon if it is closely scrutinized and found to be cogent and reliable. 3. Delay in examining a witness can be explained by circumstances, and the witness's injuries can corroborate her testimony. 4. Inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. have a limited scope and do not include details of the assault or assailants. 5. Delay in dispatching the F.I.R. is not fatal if it is promptly forwarded to the Magistrate. 6. A defense plea that is an afterthought and not believable cannot be accepted.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
R. K. PATRA, J.
( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 109 of 1989 has been filed by Bhikari Behera challenging his conviction under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of regorous imprisonment for life imposed thereunder. Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1989 has been filed by Pramod Kumar Mantri and Bhagirathi Rout challenging their conviction under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. and sentence of regorous imprisonment for five years inflicted thereunder. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they were heared together and are disposed of this judgment.
( 2 ) THE aforesaid three appellants along with nine others were charged under Sections 148/452/302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. The appellants were also separately charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C.
( 3 ) PROSECUTION is that on 28-5-1988 at about 10 a. m. appellants along with their associates formed an unlawful being around with delay weapons in front of the house of the informant Sanatan in village Biswanthpur and abused him and other family members. They forcibly made entry into his house, assaulted his father Bauribandhu on his head by means of lathis, dragged him out-side and three him on the ground. They also assaulted Santan's mothers and thereafter left the Sopt. The injured Bauribandhu was taken in a cart to Tigiria hospital, while he was being taken for better treatment from Tigiria to Cuttack, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. On the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by Sanatan (P. W. I.) investigation was taken up. After its completion, the appellants along with nine others were charge-sheeted.
( 4 ) THE learned Second Additional Session Judge has convicted the appellant Bhikari Behere under Section 302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of Bauribandhu. He has convicted the appellants Pramod Kumar Mantri and Bhagirathi Rout under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. because of the fact that the helped appellant Bhikari in dragging the injured Bauribandhu out of his house and for the part played by them prior, during and after the incident of infliction of murderous assault on Bauribandhu by appellant Bhikari.
( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the general plea of the appellants was one of denial, they examined three witnesses in support of their case that when one Dhadi Rout was attacked by the deceased Bauribandhu and his family members, the former in order to defend himself brandished a thenga which accidentally hit Bauribandhu who succumbed to the said injuries.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined. The conviction of the appellants is based on the eye witness account testified by P. W. 1. (son of the deceased Bauribandhu), P. W. 2 (window of deceased Bauribandhu) and P. W. 3 (brother of the deceased Bauribandhu ).
( 7 ) WE have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. P. W. 1 (son of the deceased) stated that Harihar (P. W. 8) is his paternal uncle being the brother of his father Bauribandhu. He was a ward Member of the village. The accused suspected his uncle to have mis-appropriated the panchayat fund and bore grudge against the entire family. On the date of occurrence at about 10 a. m. the accused persons including the appellants being armed with thenges came to their house to attack his father and other family members. When appellant bhagirathi tried to assault him, out of fear he went inside the court-yard, the appellants Bhikari, Pramod and Bhagirathi entered inside the house. His father Bauribandhu was sitting on the verandah of the court-yard to take his food. Then appellant Bhikari dealt two blows by means of a sisu thenga on the left side head of his father. He fell down sustaining injuries. Thereafter all the three appellant dragged the injured. When his mother P. W. 2 protested and asked the appellants to leave her husband, it was accused Indramani (not appellant) dealt a blow with a thenga on the head of his mother. She lost her senses. Th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.