Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK, CUTTACK
S.K. MISHRA, A.K. MISHRA, JJ.
Raju alias Rajkishore Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
CRLA No. 241 of 2012
Decided On : 27-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s. Niranjan Panda, R.B. Mishra.
For the Respondent: Mr. L. Samantray.
The absence of motive is not a defining factor when the case is established by eyewitnesses.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 302/324 IPC, read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 302, 324; Arms Act Sections 25, 27
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/324 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act for attacking and causing injuries to three individuals, resulting in the death of one. The prosecution presented evidence including eyewitness testimonies, dying declaration, and discovery of the weapon of offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the death to be homicidal based on medical evidence and eyewitness testimonies. It upheld the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the dying declaration, and considered the discovery of the weapon of offence as admissible evidence. The court rejected the defense's arguments and concluded that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimonies, admissibility of dying declaration, discovery of the weapon of offence, and absence of motive as defining factor
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, dying declaration, and discovery of the weapon of offence to establish the guilt of the appellant. It emphasized that the absence of motive is not a defining factor when the case is established by eyewitnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. MISHRA, J.
1. The sole appellant was convicted under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C. in brevity) read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short R.I.) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) in default to undergo further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand) in default to undergo further R.I. for six months for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) in default to undergo further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 25 Arms Act and to undergo further R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 27 Arms Act. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently with set off privilege under Section 428 Cr. P.C. by the judgment dated 21.03.2012 in S.T. Case No. 04/78 of 2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri. Hence, this appeal.
2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.11. 2001 at about 8.00 P.M. deceased-Jagannath Das, Badrinarayan Tiwari (PW-9) and Kabuli Moharana (PW-3) were coming to market chhak through Chudapatti. Kabuli (PW-3) was riding a bicycle. Deceased-Jagannath and Badrinarayan were coming in another bicycle. At Chudapatti, accused-appellant attacked them and dealt blows by means of a sword. All of them sustained injuries. They were taken to District Headquarters Hospital, Puri (in short DHH, Puri). The father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. at 9.10 P.M. resulting registration of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No. 191 of 2001, under Section 307 I.P.C. In course of treatment, as the condition of the deceased become serious, the I.O. made requisition and doctor recorded the dying declaration of the deceased implicating the accused at 10.00 P.M. Thereafter the deceased was referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. He was brought to causality outdoor of SCB Medical College, but succumbed to injuries on the next day i.e. 26.11.2001. On getting information, Mangalabag P.S. U.D. Case No. 895 dated 26.11.201 was registered. Inquest over the dead body was made and postmortem was conducted. On being aware of, the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) at Kumbharapada P.S. added the offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. On 5.08.2002 the accused was arrested as he was found absconded soon after the incident. He was produced in the court and remanded to judicial custody. On 8.08.2002 the I.O. took the accused to police custody and on that day he gave a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and led to give discovery of a sword. The sword was examined by the doctor and opinion was obtained. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session and accused-appellant faced trial for the charges under Sections 302/307 I.P.C. read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act. He was convicted and sentenced as stated in prologue.
3. The plea of defence was denial simpliciter.
4. Prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. PW-1 is the informant. PWs. 3 and 9 are the injured-cum-eye witnesses. PW-14 is the doctor who conducted P.M. over the dead body. PW-15 is the doctor who had examined examined the injured victim. PW-17 is the H.O.D. of F.M.T. at SCB Medical College, Cuttack, who had given opinion on weapon of offence. PW-18 is the I.O. who has submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation. PW-16 is the I.O. who had registered the case and had taken up the initial investigation. PWs. 2, 4 to 7, 10 and 13 are hostile witnesses. PW-12 is the doctor who had recorded dying declaration. PW-11 is a witness to seizure and to the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. PW-8 is a witness to the seizure.
5. On behalf of defence one witness was ex
