Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 1010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
I. MAHANTY, BISWAJIT MOHANTY, JJ.
Sunadhar Bag – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 of 2008
Decided On : 12-10-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu
For the Respondent: Mr. L. Samantaray (Learned Standing Counsel)
The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, including motive, threats, and the discovery of incriminating items, can be sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case.
Headnote:
MURDER - Circumstantial Evidence - Section-302 of the I.P.C. - [302] - The judgment and order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bolangir in Sessions Case No.68/44 of 2007 convicting the appellant under Section-302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for two years more.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a young boy, went missing and was later found dead with injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who had a history of quarrels with the deceased's family, had threatened to harm the deceased and his father. The appellant denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was evidence of ill-feeling and threats between the appellant and the deceased's family. The court also noted the circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of a blood-stained weapon, which pointed to the appellant's guilt. The court concluded that the appellant was rightly convicted of murder.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency of the evidence to establish motive and guilt, and the admissibility of the evidence leading to the discovery of the weapon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the circumstantial evidence, including the history of ill-feeling and threats, the discovery of a blood-stained weapon, and the consistency of the witnesses' testimony, to establish the appellant's guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under Section-302 of the I.P.C. was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Biswajit Mohanty, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bolangir in Sessions Case No.68/44 of 2007 convicting the appellant under Section-302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for two years more.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.1.2007 P.W.4-informant had gone to Mandal village for cutting tree. While cutting tree at around 4 to 5 P.M. it was intimated to him that his son deceased Sabara Gahira aged about 11 years, who had taken the bullock for grazing had not returned home. Hearing this, P.W.4 immediately returned home and heard from his wife and daughter (P.W.7) that though the bullock had returned, their son had not returned. During search, he found the dead body of his son near Badadunguritala nala. While the dead body was covered under the sand, the legs were visible. P.W.4 brought the dead body to the thrashing floor of Pramod Thakur and there he saw mark of injuries on the neck, head, back and left ear of his son on account of assault by axe. The background facts according to P.W.4 as indicated in the F.I.R. are that the appellant was married to the sister of the informant (P.W.4). They were staying together in a house in front of the house of the informant. In the last Chaitra month, P.W.4 became ill and on account of such illness the wife of the informant blamed the appellant for having committed sorcery on her husband. As a result, quarrel ensued between the family of the informant with the appellant. In such background, the appellant left the village of informant and went away to village Sargiguda. It is alleged that on account of sorcery practised by the appellant, the informant was not able to walk properly. Later on he was cured after taking medicine. Few days prior to the occurrence, the appellant (who is the brother-in-law of the informant) had come to the village of the informant. Seeing him, the wife of P.W.4 (informant) started blaming the appellant as the informant was not able to walk properly on account of sorcery practiced by him. This resulted in another quarrel and the appellant threatened the informant to the effect that earlier he had a narrow escape and next time either P.W.4 or his son would be murdered.
On the last Wednesday prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant visited the house of the informant (P.W.4) and abused him as the P.W.4 had stacked the cotton bundles in front of his house. P.W.4 admitted to have stacked the cotton bundles and assured to remove the same. On 25.1.2007 while the informant was going to the village Mandal, he saw the appellant near the school with vermillion on his head and axe on his hand. When he saw him, the appellant concealed himself.
In such background, P.W.4 lodged a written report on 25.1.2007 at 9 P.M. as he was of the firm opinion that in order to settle scores, the appellant had killed his son with repeated assault with an axe. Upon receipt of such report, P.S. Case No.8 of 2007 was registered by P.W.11 and he took up the investigation. Exhibit-11 is that F.I.R.
On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and accordingly the appellant stood trial.
3. The plea of the appellant was that of a complete denial and false implication.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 14 witnesses. P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.Ws. 2 and 12 are the seizure witnesses. P.W.4 (who happens to be brother-in-law of the appellant) is the informant. P.W.6 is a witness, who has stated about having heard the shouting of the deceased near the place of occurrence. P.W.7 is the daughter of P.W.4 and sister of the deceased. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the witnesses to the disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem and P.W.11 is the Inve
