Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Parija, A.S. Naidu, JJ.
STATE OF ORISSA - APPELLANT
Versus
PADU @ PADMAMUKHA DANDIA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 16-07-2009
D.P. Dhal and D.K. Das, for the Appellant; A.G.A., for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the assessment of evidence, including witness testimonies and the nature of injuries, to determine the guilt of the accused and the appropriate sentencing.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - IPC 302, IPC 323/34 - [IPC 302, IPC 323/34] - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the death was homicidal in nature. The accused were found guilty under IPC 304 Part-II and IPC 323/34. The court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentencing, considering the evidence and the age of one of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of Amiya Mishra due to assault by the accused persons. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted Amiya with different weapons, resulting in his death. The defense denied the allegations, claiming that Amiya had a tussle with someone else and sustained fatal injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the death of Amiya to be homicidal in nature and held the accused guilty under IPC 304 Part-II and IPC 323/34. The court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentencing, considering the evidence and the age of one of the accused.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of Amiya's death, the involvement of the accused in the assault, and the credibility of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of evidence, including discrepancies in witness testimonies, the nature of injuries, and the existence of long-standing enmity between the parties. The court also considered the age of one of the accused in determining the sentencing.
Final Decision: The Government Appeal and Criminal Appeal were dismissed, and the order of conviction and sentencing by the lower court was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order dated 30.4.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir acquitting the accused persons of the charges u/s 302, I.P.C. in S.C. No. 65/18/9 of 1994-95 is assailed in G.A. No. 25 of 1997 by the State.
Similarly the order of conviction passed under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir in S.C. No. 65/ 18/9 of 1994-95 is assailed in CRLA No. 149 of 1996 by the accused persons.
2. As both the appeals involve same facts and points of law, the same were heard together and this common judgment disposes of both the appeals.
3. The prosecution case was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.12.1993 before Saintala Police Station in the district of Balangir alleging that on 09.12.1993 at about 2.00 P.M. Amiya Mishra, Budu Rout and some of their friends of village Dharapgarh came to the Pan shop of Lalu Dandia to take pan. After a short while the accused persons came there and accused Padu Dandia dealt a lathi blow on the head of Amiya. Consequent thereof he fell down on the ground. Thereafter other accused persons assaulted him with different weapons like lathis, tabli and tangia. Amiya sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. After receiving the F.I.R. a police case was registered which was subsequently converted to G.R. Case No. 336 of 1993 in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. The learned Magistrate after going through the police records and on being prima facie satisfied took cognizance and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.
4. The plea of defence was of complete denial. It is stated that due to previous rivalry the accused persons were falsely implicated. The further plea of the accused was that Amiya had a tussle with Shankar Bhoi and during the said tussle, he fell down on the metal heaps stacked by the side of the road and sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
5. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution got 10 witnesses examined whereas on behalf of defence no witness was examined. However, the certified copy of the charge sheet in G.R. Case No. 122 of 1992 of the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh was filed and was marked as Ext. B, to show that Amiya was facing trial for commission of offence u/s 509 I.P.C. Defence also filed Ext.C which reveals that Amiya was an accused in G.R. Case No. 408 of 1991 and it was alleged that he had committed offence u/s 307 I.P.C. The defence also filed the certified copy of the charge sheet in G.R. Case No. 408 of 1991 (Ext.D) which reveals that Amiya had assaulted one Abdul Guffer in order to kill him. Exts. E and F were also filed by the defence in order to establish that Amiya had committed offence under Sections 341/323/294/506 I.P.C. and he was a habitual and noted criminal.
6. Out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.2 was the Ward Member and the seizure witness. He deposed that accused Padmamukha, Ananda Dandia, Jhagu and Sana Budek while in police custody disclosed that they have concealed the weapon of offences in their respective houses and led the police and witnesses to their houses and gave recovery of the same. During cross-examination the said witnesses clearly stated that bloodstains were available on M.O.I to M.O.IV.
7. P.Ws. 1, 5 and 10 were three persons who came to the Pan shop along with Budu Dandia and Amiya. P.W.3 was Anr. witness who had also accompanied Amiya and had seen the occurrence. P.W.4 was the inquest witness. He was however, declared hostile. P.W.6 was the Constable who accompanied the dead body for postmortem. P.W.8 was the Doctor who treated Budu Dandia, Budu Rout and Ananda Dandia and stated that they had sustained certain injuries. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer.
8. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the evidence both oral and documentary, relying upon the evidence of the
