Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. MURALIDHAR, R.K. PATTANAIK, JJ
Sanyasi Jani - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
JCRLA No. 25 of 2011
Decided on : 28-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sujit Ku. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Adv
The significance of direct evidence and the limited importance of motive when clear and unambiguous evidence is available.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder - Section 302, Section 324 - [IPC Section 302, IPC Section 324] - The court discussed the direct evidence provided by multiple eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, which corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The court also highlighted the legal position on the significance of motive in cases where direct evidence is available, emphasizing that the absence of motive does not weaken the case if clear and unambiguous evidence is presented. The court found no legal errors in the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Pati Santa and causing injury to Bhima Santa. Multiple eye-witnesses provided direct evidence of the incident, which was corroborated by medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the guilt of the accused to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt based on the direct and consistent evidence provided by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence.
Issues: The issues included the mental state of the accused at the time of the occurrence and the establishment of motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of direct evidence and the legal position that the absence of motive does not weaken a case if clear and unambiguous evidence is presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 16th September 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur Camp at Umerkote in C.T. No.70 of 2007, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for two years and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 16th March, 2007 at night, one Bastar Santa (PW-1) was returning to his village after disposing of the dead body of Chaitu Santa of village Poinri Chachara. At that time he saw the accused/Appellant, Sanyasi Jani running from the village side and Shyam Santa (PW-6) and Raisingh chasing him. They were shouting that the accused had committed the murder of Pati Santa and was running away. Having heard this, PW-1 caught-hold of the accused who was holding a scissor (Kainchi) at that time. He snatched away the scissor from the accused and handed it over to Raisingh. Both PW-6 and Raisingh informed the PW-1 that the accused had committed the murder of the father of the PW-6 and was running away.
3. PW-1 went to the house and found the dead body of Pati Santa lying in front of it. The deceased had sustained a stab injury on his chest and was bleeding severely. PW-1 stated that he had also heard that the accused had stabbed Bhima Santa (PW-3) with the scissor and had run away.
4. To the same effect is the evidence of Raibaru Santa (PW-2) who noticed PW-6 and other persons catching hold of the accused who was running away.
5. Bhima Santa (PW-3) was an injured eye-witness and the nephew of the deceased Pati Santa. He was at the house of Pati Santa at the time of the incident. He stated how the accused/Appellant came to their house and first dealt PW-3 a blow by means of a scissor. When the deceased objected, the accused/Appellant dealt a blow on his chest with a spear. He denied in his cross-examination that the accused/Appellant was suffering from any mental disorder at the time of the incident.
6. Trinath Santa (PW-5) the son of Pati Santa was present in the house at the time of the attack on his father, the deceased. His precise deposition was that: “the accused suddenly came to our house and dealt a blow by means of spear on my father and went away from the house. Then we chased the accused and caught red handed the accused”. He confirmed that PW-6, PW-1 and PW-2 were also present while chasing the accused/Appellant and apprehending him. The person who gave information of the crime to the police was Ghasia, who was dead by the time of the trial. Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of the PW-5, one of the key eye-witnesses to the incident. There was only a denial that he was not deposing falsely because of previous enmity.
7. The other son of the deceased, Shyam Santa (PW-6) was also an eye witness to the attack on the deceased by the accused/Appellant. The accused was running away when PW-6 chased him and caught him with the help of others. PW-6 too denied that the accused was suffering from any mental disorder.
8. Yet another eye-witness was the wife of the deceased, Sabita Santa (PW-7) who too was present in their house when the accused suddenly came and dealt a blow by means of a spear, as a result of which the deceased died. A further eye-witness is PW-8 Tula Santa, the wife of PW-6 who too spoke of the assault. There was hardly re-cross-examination of this witness.
9. This is a case of direct evidence with several eye-witnesses speaking about the incident in clear and cogent terms without any contradictions elicited in their cross-examination. No doubt they are the related witnesses but they have spoken clearly and consistently and their evidence has been corroborated fully by the medical evidenc
