Back
2014 Supreme(Ori) 576
ORISSA HIGH COURT
PRADIP MOHANTY and BISWAJIT MOHANTY, JJ.
Ramesh Chandra Acharya – Appellant
Vs.
State of Orissa – Respondents
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2004
Decided On : 11/04/2014
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302, 307 IPC] - [FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE] - [EVIDENCE OF EYE-WITNESSES] - [MEDICAL EVIDENCE] - [SEIZURE OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE] - [MOTIVE] - [JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE] - [APPEAL DISMISSED].
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC for stabbing the deceased to death and injuring another person. The prosecution case was that the appellant, along with two others, had conspired to remove the deceased from the temple where he was performing Sevapuja. On the day of the incident, the appellant emerged from the temple and stabbed the deceased in the chest. He then stabbed the injured person on the shoulder and chased him away. The appellant returned and stabbed the deceased multiple times in the belly, chest, and neck, causing his death. The appellant was arrested and confessed to the crime, leading to the recovery of the weapon of offense from the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and corroborated each other. The medical evidence supported the prosecution's case, and the seizure of the weapon of offense was found to be valid. The court rejected the appellant's contention that there was no motive for the crime, holding that the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and corroborated each other. 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. 3. Whether the seizure of the weapon of offense was valid. 4. Whether there was a motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and corroborated each other, as they were present at the spot and had a clear view of the incident. The court also noted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was consistent with the medical evidence and the seizure of the weapon of offense. 2. The court held that the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case, as it confirmed the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured person. 3. The court held that the seizure of the weapon of offense was valid, as it was recovered from the temple based on the appellant's confession. 4. The court held that the absence of a motive for the crime did not negate the prosecution's case, as the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J.
” The present Jail Criminal Appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nayagarh convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that both the sentences are to run concurrently in S.T. Case No.8/131 of 2003.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Janaki Ballav Patnaik with the help of local villagers established a temple in village Tavapalli installing deity Lord Jagannath. A Committee was formed for managing the affairs of the temple. The deceased along with many others of the village were the members of the Managing Committee. P.W.10 (Lalit Narayan Mishra) was appointed to do Seva Puja of the deity. About 8 months prior to the occurrence, the appellant had joined as ' Babaji-” of the temple and was staying in a thatched house near the temple. Six months prior to the occurrence, Sadasiva Kar came there and stayed with the appellant in the said thatched house. Sarbeswar also used to visit both of them. Sarbeswar Brahma, Sadasiva Kar and the appellant started making plans for removing Lalit Narayan Mishra (P.W.10). One day while Surya Narayan Mishra (P.W.5), the other Pujaka was preparing Bhog, the appellant came to the spot with a stick and Sadasiva Kar threw away the Dal Bhog. It may be noted here that P.W.10 is the son of P.W.5. Further, Sadasiva Kar threatened both the father and son with dire consequences. After this incident, Surya Narayan Mishra (P.W.5) represented to P.W.4 about the incident. In order to discuss all these things, a meeting was convened on 29.9.2002. Around 2 p.m. while the members of the Managing Committee including deceased Janaki Ballav Patnaik and Nikunja Patnaik were sitting in front of the temple, suddenly the appellant emerged from inside the temple holding a gupti (M.O.I) and saying ' Jay Sri Ram' - stabbed Janaki Ballav Pattnaik (deceased) on his chest by the said gupti and thereafter, he pulled out the gupti and tried to stab Nikunja Patnaik (P.W.12). When P.W.12 caught hold of the gupti, he sustained injuries on his both palms. Thereafter, the appellant again dealt a blow by the gupti on him and stabbed P.W.12 on his shoulder for which P.W.12 sustained injuries. Extricating himself out of fear, P.W.12 started running towards the village. At this, the appellant chased P.W.12 for a short distance and then immediately rushed back to the front of the temple where deceased Janaki Ballav Patnaik was lying injured and again repeatedly stabbed Janaki Ballav Patnaik at his belly, chest and neck for which Janaki Ballav Patnaik died at the spot. At this, Balabhadra Mandal (P.W.2) raised hullah and many villagers of Tavapalli arrived at the spot. Seeing them, the appellant entered into the temple with gupti and kept the gupti inside the temple. Subsequently the son of the deceased (P.W.1) got the F.I.R. drafted through P.W.8 under Ext.1 and presented it at the police station which resulted in investigation and finally police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and two others, namely Sarbeswar and Sadasiva. The appellant and two others pleaded not guilty to the charges and accordingly, the trial ensued.
3. Prosecution in order to prove the charges examined 16 witnesses including two doctors and investigating officers and exhibited 15 documents. The defence examined none. Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that the deceased had constructed the temple with the help of villagers of Tavapalli and P.W.5 and P.W.10 were doing Sevapuja of the said deity. The appellant admitted that the appellant was brought by the deceased to the said temple and he was staying in the thatched room situated close to the temple. The appellant al
