Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.K. Mohanti, B.K. Behera, JJ.
CHUIAN MAHALLIK - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1978
Decided On : 30-09-1981
S.S. Hota, Amicus Curiae, for the Appellant; Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent
A person cannot be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code if the death of the deceased did not occur due to shock produced by the injuries which were inflicted by the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION ALTERED TO SECTION 324, INDIAN PENAL CODE - SENTENCE REDUCED FROM LIFE IMPRISONMENT TO ONE YEAR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT - DEATH OF DECEASED DUE TO SHOCK RESULTING FROM MULTIPLE INJURIES - NO EVIDENCE OF FURTHER ASSAULT AFTER INITIAL INCIDENT - POSSIBILITY OF DEATH DUE TO FALL CANNOT BE RULED OUT - APPELLANT GUILTY OF CAUSING SIMPLE INJURIES WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Dukhabandhu Jena. The prosecution alleged that the appellant assaulted the deceased with an axe in front of his house and then dragged him to the village Kothaghara, where he was detained for the whole night. The next morning, the appellant and another accused person took the deceased to his house, where he was found dead by his daughter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did commit assault on the deceased as he passed stool in front of his house in the night of occurrence. However, the court also found that the death of the deceased did not occur due to shock produced by the injuries which were inflicted by the appellant in front of his house. The court also found that there was no evidence to show that the appellant committed any further assault on the deceased after he was taken to the Kothaghara.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code because the death of the deceased did not occur due to shock produced by the injuries which were inflicted by the appellant. The court also held that there was no evidence to show that the appellant committed any further assault on the deceased after he was taken to the Kothaghara. The court further held that the appellant was guilty of causing simple injuries with a deadly weapon under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court altered the conviction to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
P.K. Mohanti, J. - The Appellant and five others were jointly tried on a charge u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code for having caused, in furtherance of their common intention, the death of one Dukhabandhu Jena of village Damal under Parjang Police Station in the district of Dhenkanal. After trial, the Appellant was convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The other accused persons were acquitted of the charge framed against them.
2. Prosecution case runs thus:
The Appellant is the front door neighbour of the deceased.
In the night between 21-9-1976 and 22-9-1976 the deceased woke up for urination and went to the front side of his house. While he was passing urine, the Appellant assaulted him with the blunt side of an axe. The other accused persons, who are relations of the Appellant, arrived there and the Appellant along with the other accused persons dragged the deceased to the Kothaghara of the village where he was detained for the whole night. In the next morning when the condition of the deceased became precarious the Appellant along with Dukhia Behera (since acquitted) took the deceased to his house and left him there when were P.W. 4 Mina, the daughter of the deceased, was alone present in the house. The wife of the deceased had left for the police station to lodge information about the incident of assault which took place in the night. P.W. 4 found her father dead with several injuries on his body. Sapneswar Jena (P.W. 1) who is a nephew of the deceased went to the police station by cycle and lodged F.I.R. at 12 noon. The officer-in-charge of the Police Station (P.W. 10) proceeded to the spot, held inquest over the dead body and despatched it for post-mortem examination. On the same day, he arrested the Appellant. While under police custody, the Appellant made a statement leading to discovery of the axe M.O. I from the house of his father-in-law. The Appellant made a judicial confession before the Magistrate (P.W. 11) on 25-9-1976. After due investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant and five others under Sections 302/34 and 342, Indian Penal Code.
At the trial, the Appellant denied the charge and retracted the judicial confession.
3. On a consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the Appellant was responsible for the same. In the petition of appeal presented through the Superintendent of Jail, the Appellant has challenged the order of conviction as being against the weight of evidence on the record.
4. Mr. S.S. Hota, the learned Counsel appearing amicus curiae for the Appellant contended that on the evidence adduced in the case no offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, has been made out.
5. Doctor Chittaranjan Patnaik (P.W. 6) who performed post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 23-9-1976 found the following injuries:
(1) Bruise 4" x 1" on the left side of the back of the chest.
(2) Bruise 5" x 1" on the left scapula.
(3) Bruise 3" x 3/4" on the right side of the back of the chest.
(4) Contusion on the left elbow.
(5) Swelling of the lower lid of the left eye.
(6) Lacerated injury 1/2" x 1/4" on the left upper eye brow.
(7) Bruise 4" x 1" on the left gluteal region.
(8) Linear contusion 3" long on the lower third of the left scapula.
(9) Abrasion 1 1/2' x 1" on the right side of the back of the chest.
(10) Linear contusion 2 1/2" long on the left side of the middle of the neck.
In the doctor's opinion, the injuries were antemortem in nature and the death was due to shock resulting from the multiple injuries.
6. The crucial question for consideration is whether the Appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased. The order of conviction is based mainly on (1) the direct evidence of P.W. 8 who is said to be an eye-witness to the occurrence of assault which took place in front of the house of the deceased; (2) the retracted judicial confession (Ext. 10) mad
