IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. MISHRA, PRAMATH PATNAIK, JJ.
Jitu Parida - Appellant.
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
Crla No.114 of 2020
Decided on : 11-06-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 6 - Death of deceased homicidal in nature - Offence of Murder - Conviction - Imprisonment for life - Previous enmity - Altercation between parties - During quarrel, the accused picked up a Paniki (Kitchen Knife) and cut the neck of the deceased Mamuli Barik, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot - Hearsay Evidence - Not admissible.
Finding of the Court : Testimony of three witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3, 5 and 12 it is crystal clear that they were told by someone about the occurrence. Therefore, Court opinion that the evidence of aforesaid three witnesses are inadmissible being hearsay -By applying the principle of res gestae which is an exception to the rule of hearsay, the learned Sessions Judge, Angul has committed error in appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, there being no direct evidence against the Appellant, he is entitled to an order of acquittal.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
S.K. MISHRA, J.
In this appeal, the sole appellant-Jitu Parida assails his conviction, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code” for brevity), and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life as well as to pay fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(s) No.141 of 2015.
02. The prosecution case in brief is that both the Appellant-Jitu Parida and the deceased Mamuli Barik belonged to village Kangula and there was previous enmity between them. The Appellant-Jitu Parida was once arrested by the Police, on the complaint of the deceased Mamuli Barik, and was subsequently released on bail. On 19.05.2015 at about 2.00 P.M. Jitu Parida on getting information that Mamuli had been to Angul Town and would return home, waited in the Tiffin shop of Sanjaya Parida located at Bihari Chhak, Kangula. At about 2.30 P.M. when Mamuli Barik reached the spot, the accused called the deceased to the Tiffin shop of Sanjaya Parida and there was altercation between them relating to previous dispute. Sanjaya Parida also reached the Tiffin shop and saw the fighting between them. During such quarrel, the accused picked up a Paniki (Kitchen Knife) and cut the neck of the deceased Mamuli Barik, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. Jitu Parida after committing murder of the deceased, threw the weapon of offence i.e. Paniki there at the spot and ran away towards Angul. Sanjaya Parida, the owner of the Tiffin shop went to the informant and informed about the murder of Mamuli Barik by the accused. Getting such information, the informant who is the brother of the deceased, rushed to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased inside the Tiffin shop of Sanjaya Parida and a blood stained Paniki lying there. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged the written report vide Ext.3, on the basis of which, Angul Police Station Case No.260 of 2015 was registered under Sections 302/ 114/ 34 of the Penal Code against Jitu Parida and one Rohita Parida, who alleged to have instigated the accused Jitu Parida to commit murder of the deceased. The Inspector-In-Charge, Angul Police Station, Angul took up the investigation of the case.
During course of the investigation, P.W.18 (Samir Kumar Panda), the Inspector-In-Charge of Angul Police Station, Angul examined the complainant and other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map vide Ext.10, seized the weapon of offence, i.e, the blood stained sharp cutting weapon (Paniki) vide seizure list Ext.4, at about 5.10 P.M., held inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide inquest report Ext.2, dispatched the dead body of the deceased Mamuli Barik for post mortem examination vide dead body challan Ext.11. At about 7.50 P.M., the Investigating Officer apprehended the accused, interrogated and arrested him at about 8.15 P.M., on 20.05.2015 forwarded the accused to court after his medical examination, seized one blood stained banian, one multi colour napkin, blood sample, nail clippings of the deceased vide Ext.1, seized the wearing apparels, biological sample of the deceased vide Ext.6. On 01.07.2015, he received the post-mortem report of the deceased, sent a query on the weapon of offence to the Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital, Angul for examination and opinion as to whether the injuries found on the deceased are possible by the seized weapon. On 09.08.2015, he handed over the charge of the investigation to P.W.17 (Subash Chandra Sahu), the Inspector-In-Charge of Angul Police Station, Angul. P.W.17, during course of investigation, re-examined the complainant and other witnesses, sent the exhibits to S.F.S.L, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical analysis and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet.
03. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication.
04. The prosecution in order to establish it
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.