Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Acharya, B.K. Patra, JJ.
MAKRA SINGH - APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1971
Decided On : 22-10-1973
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 302, 84, 470, 471, 474 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - MURDER - INSANITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - DELIBERATION - PREPARATION - CONCEALMENT - CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT - SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT - MENTAL CONDITION - OPINION OF MEDICAL EXPERT - COURT'S DISCRETION - ACQUITTAL - DETENTION IN SAFE CUSTODY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant, in a fit of rage, killed his wife by striking her with a wooden pole and then severing her head with a spade. The appellant denied his involvement and claimed that he was insane at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant assault his wife and sever her head, as well as the medical evidence which confirmed the cause of death. The court also considered the appellant's subsequent conduct, including his failure to flee the scene or show any remorse, as evidence of his guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was insane at the time of the incident and therefore not criminally responsible for his actions. 2. Whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not insane at the time of the incident and was therefore criminally responsible for his actions. The court found that the appellant's mental condition, while disturbed, did not rise to the level of legal insanity. The court also found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder, based on the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the appellant's subsequent conduct.
Final Decision: The court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the court also directed the Sessions Judge to pass necessary orders for the appellant's detention in safe custody and to report the action taken to the State Government, which could then pass necessary orders under Section 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT :
S. Acharya, J
1. The Appellant stands convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for life.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on the date of occurrence (14-8-1962) the accused returned from the river after bath and asked his wife, deceased Sombari, to give him some food. Sombari, who at that time was sweeping the floor for husking paddy, delayed in giving food to her husband, as a result of which the accused suddenly got infuriated and pulled out a wooden pole (M.O. I) from the thatch of his house and dealt a blow on the head of Sombari, who, on receiving the blow, fell down on the ground. The accused then picked up a spade (M.O. II) lying near about that place and inflicted two blows with its sharp edge on the neck of Sombari and severed her head from the body. P.w. 2, on seeing all this, ran to the house of p.w. 1, the brother of the accused, and intimated to him that the accused killed Sombari in the aforesaid manner. P.w. 1 came to the house of the accused along with the Village Chowkidar and found that Sombari had been beheaded and the accused was sitting on a Charpois which had been placed over two other Charpois one upon the other. P.w. 1 and the Village Chowkidar asked the villagers to keep a watch over the deadbody and the accused, and they proceeded to the Baripada police station to report the matter.
3. The accused, after police investigation and the commitment proceeding, was tried for a charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, of which he stands convicted as stated above.
4. The accused denied his complicity in this crime.
From the trend of the cross-examination it appears that a case u/s 84, Indian Penal Code, on the stand that at the time of the occurrence the accused was subjected to a sudden fit of insanity due to which he had no knowledge of what he was doing, was seriously advanced on behalf of the accused.
5. P.w. 3, the doctor, who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body found the following injuries:
(1) One incised wound 4 c.m. ? 3 c.m. on the left forehead over the left eye brow.
(2) The head had been completely severed from the body at the 3rd cirvical vertebrae.
(3) There was haematoma below the scalp over the left parietal area and the parietal bone had been fractured into pieces on the left side.
He (p.w. 3) opined that the injuries found on the deadbody were all anti-mortem in nature and that the head and the trunk belonged to one and the same individual, and that the severance of the head from the body could have been effected with the sharp edge of the spade (M.O. II) and that the haematoma found on the skull of the deceased could be caused by means of a stick.
On the above evidence of p.w. 3 there is absolutely no doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant did not at all challenge this aspect of the matter.
6. P.w. 1, as stated above, is the brother of the accused who, on receiving information from p.w. 2, came to the house of the accused and very soon thereafter went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 3). In his examination-in-chief he stated that p.w. 2 came to his house and informed him that the wife of the accused had been killed and that p.w. 2 did not tell him as to who killed the wife of the accused. He was declared hostile, and on being cross-examined by the prosecution he admitted that he had reported at the police station that p.w. 2 intimated him that the accused had killed his wife by severing her head from her trunk. He identified M.O. II to be the spade lying at the place of occurrence stained with human blood. In his cross-examination by the defence he again admitted that p.w. 2 had reported to him that the accused being insane killed his wife. From all that has been elicited from him in cross-examination and from his previous statement in the F.I.R. (admitted to have been read over and explained to him) to the effect that p.w. 2 had informed him that it was t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
