Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Dr. S. Muralidhar, B.P.Routray, JJ.
Fagu Kisan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
CRA No. 113 of 1998
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The last statement of the deceased, medical evidence, and witness testimonies can be crucial in establishing guilt under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - Section 302 of the I.P.C. - 342/302/34 of the I.P.C. - Lathikata P.S. Case No.31 dated 26th October, 1994 - M.O.-III - Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was convicted for the murder of Sanatana and sentenced to life imprisonment. The deceased was found injured and later declared dead at the hospital. The medical evidence confirmed the homicidal death of the deceased. The weapon of offence, M.O.-III, was seized and found to have human blood stains. Witness testimonies, including the last statement of the deceased, implicated the Appellant in the assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the Appellant in the murder of the deceased. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to take appropriate steps for the custody of the Appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the admissibility of the last statement of the deceased under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the Appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the last statement of the deceased as a relevant piece of evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The medical evidence and witness testimonies, including the son of the deceased, were considered sufficient to establish the guilt of the Appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to take appropriate steps for the custody of the Appellant.
JUDGMENT
B.P. Routray, J. - The Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
2. The Appellant Fagu along with two others namely, Trinath and Umasankar faced trial in S.T.No.177/51 of 1995 for offences under Sections 342/302/34 of the I.P.C. The Appellant was convicted for offence of murder while other two were acquitted from the charges.
3. The present case corresponds to Lathikata P.S. Case No.31 dated 26th October, 1994. Prior to that, Lathikata P.S. Case No.30 dated 26th October, 1994 was registered on the report of the present Appellant on the allegations that Sanatana (deceased) assaulted the appellant. To inquire into the allegations, P.W.10-Chandramani Majhi, the then Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police went to village Suidihi. When he reached at the village around 8.00 P.M. found Sanatana lying by the side of the drain, near Lakshmi Mandap behind the house of P.W.1 in injured condition with legs tied by a jute rope. Seeing P.W.10 near him, Sanatana asked for water and further stated that Fagu (the present Appellant) assaulted him by means of an iron rod. P.W.10 shifted the deceased by a trolley rickshaw (Thela) to the nearby hospital where the doctor declared him dead upon examination. He then lodged the written report and accordingly Lathikata P.S. Case No.31 dated 26th October, 1994 was registered. P.W.14, the then Sub-Inspector, took up investigation of the case and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Panposh for post-mortem examination. In course of investigation, P.W.14 seized the weapon of offence (M.O.-III) i.e., a bent crowbar as produced by the Appellant in connection with Lathikata P.S. Case No.30 of 1994. The scientific officer was requisitioned, who examined the spot and collected bloodstained as well as sample earth.
4. The investigation was taken over by P.W.16, the then Inspector-in- Charge of Lakthikata Police Station on 30th October, 1994. He submitted the charge-sheet on 20th January, 1995 upon completion of investigation.
5. Prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses in order to prove their case and also marked eighteen exhibits along-with five material objects.
6. The defence pleaded complete denial of prosecution charges.
7. Amongst those sixteen witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.7 and 13 are the vital witnesses as have been projected as the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.7 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.13 is the son. P.W.6 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and as stated earlier, P.Ws.14 and 16 are the Investigating Officers. P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 have turned hostile, P.Ws.4, 9, 11 and 12 are the witnesses to seizure of different articles.
8. As per the medical evidence adduced by P.W.6, the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was found with ten external injuries. Out of those injuries, four were bruises present over the thigh and arms, four lacerated wounds present on the left elbow, right elbow, mid-right arm and right palm respectively and two more lacerated wounds of size 2' x 1' x 0.5' were present on the occipital skull and lateral to occipital part of the skull respectively. There were corresponding fracture injuries on the left ulna, shaft and other parts of the body. As per the opinion of P.W.6, the death is due to shock caused by excessive hemorrhage on account of the afore-stated injuries. Thus, on analysis of the medical evidence and keeping in view the prosecution allegations, there cannot be any doubt about homicidal death of the deceased.
9. Regarding use of the weapon of offence, i.e. M.O.III the crowbar, the same has been seized by P.W. 14 on production by the appellant. On scientific examination, human blood stains were found on the same.
10. As regards the evidence against the Appellant which points to him being the author of the crime, it is necessary to
