Back
2011 Supreme(Ori) 548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Mohapatra, C.R. Dash, JJ.
LOKANATH PUJAPANDA AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
CRLA. No. 121 of 1999
Decided On : 09-03-2011
The injuries inflicted must be the proximate cause of death to hold the death as homicidal.
Headnote:
302/34 - Murder - 302/34, I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302/34, I.P.C. for causing the death of the deceased by assaulting him with swords. The deceased sustained multiple cut and bleeding injuries and eventually succumbed to the injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Appellants guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. read with Section 34 thereof. The conviction of the Appellants under section 302/34, I.P.C. was set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the proximate cause of death, and the intention of the Appellants in causing the injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries inflicted must be the proximate cause of death to hold the death as homicidal. It was established that the injuries caused by the Appellants led to the deceased's death, making it a homicidal death.
Final Decision: The conviction of the Appellants was modified to one under section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. read with Section 34 thereof. The Appellants were discharged of the bail bonds executed in the case.
JUDGMENT :
C.R. Dash, J. - Both the Appellants along with six others stood trial for 11:35 AM 5/26/2011offence punishable u/s 302/34, I.P.C. Learned Trial Court found the present Appellants guilty u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. The aforesaid judgment and order of sentence dated 26.03.1999 passed in S.T. Case No. 22/64 of 1997 and S.T. Case No. 48/327 of 1997 by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri are impugned in this appeal.
2. A compendium of the prosecution case, as found from the record, is as follows:
The occurrence happened at about 7.30 a.m. The occurrence happened at about 7.30 a.m. on 27.09.1996 at Gudia Sahi, Puri in front of the house of deceased Laxmidhar Rout. Deceased Laxmidhar Rout was bringing water from the front courtyard of his house at that time. Both the Appellants being armed with swords came there and dealt blows on the head of the deceased from his backside, abusing him in filthy language. They were also declaring simultaneously to take away his life. Receiving the blow when the deceased Laxmidhar Rout entered inside his house, both the Appellants chased him and dealt further blows to his head by the swords held by them. The deceased raised his right hand to ward off the sword blow and received cut injuries on his little finger and another finger. Owing to assault by the Appellants, deceased Laxmidhar Rout sustained multiple cut and bleeding injuries on his head, shoulder, hands and legs. 'Basti' people rushed to the spit hearing shout of the deceased, and seeing them the Appellants decamped from the spot. The deceased was first taken to Puri Town P.S. in a rickshaw and thereafter he was taken to District Headquarter Hospital, Puri for necessary treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 01.10.1996. F.I.R. was lodged in Puri Town P.S. On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer (P.W.10) filed charge-sheet implicating the present Appellants and others in the offence punishable u/s 302/34, I.P.C.
The defence plea is one of complete denial.
3. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove the charge. P.Ws. 4, 6 and 9 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are post-occurrence witnesses.P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased by the I.O. (P.W. 10). P.W. 1 is a witness to the seizure. P.W. 5 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured Laxmidhar Rout (deceased) on police requisition and held postmortem over his dead body on his death. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer, who had conducted the substantive part of the investigation and P.W. 11 is the I.O. who received the report, treated the same as F.I.R., registered a case and directed P.W. 10 to take up investigation.
Defence has examined none.
4. Learned Trial Court, on consideration of the materials on record, held the Appellants guilty u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and convicted them there under, while acquitting the others implicated in the offence.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that there being discrepancies in the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 4, 6 and 9, and P.W. 4 being a chance witness, conviction of the Appellants on the basis of their evidence is not sustainable in the eyes of law motive on the part of the Appellants having not been proved, conviction of the Appellants u/s 302, I.P.C. is bad in law; the cause of death of the deceased having been opined to be cerebral embolism which may occur even in case of a hypertensive patent, cause of death of the deceased is not proximate to the act of the Appellants and it is too remote so as to hold the Appellants guilty u/s 302, I.P.C. In the alternative, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellants that regard being had to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and cause of his death, Appellants could have only been convicted either u/s 324, I.P.C. or at best u/s 326, I.P.C.
6. P.W. 4 is criticized and assailed by l
