Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. TALAPATRA, B.P. ROUTRAY, JJ.
Surendra Munda – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 62 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.K. Budhia.
For the Respondent: S.S. Kanungo.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon of offence, to determine the guilt of the Appellant and the appropriate conviction under the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, a life convict, appealed against the judgment convicting and sentencing him for life for the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident involved a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased's sister, leading to the Appellant assaulting the deceased with an axe, resulting in severe injuries and eventual death.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the Appellant based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the weapon of offence. The court found the prosecution's case well proved and confirmed the homicidal nature of the deceased's death.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the deceased's death, the credibility of eyewitnesses, and the intention of the Appellant in committing the assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the weapon of offence to establish the Appellant's guilt. It also considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances leading to the assault.
Final Decision: The court modified the Appellant's conviction to fall within Part-I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to the period undergone in custody, ordering his release if his detention is not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
B.P. ROUTRAY, JJ.
1. The Appellant is a life convict. He has preferred the appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 118/62 of 2009 convicting and sentencing him for life along with fine of Rs.2000/- for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the I.P.C.).
2. One Gumuni Patra is the elder sister of the deceased Dhabaleswar Patra and staying in the house of the deceased in village Sihsadihi under Banei Police Station. On 12th January, 2009 in the afternoon Gumuni and the Appellant were quarreling in front of the house of the deceased. During quarrel, the Appellant fell down as he had drunken at that time and sustained injuries. Then out of anger he went inside his house and brought out an axe (budia). Seeing this, Gumuni ran into the house of the deceased to save her life and the Appellant chased her. Inside the house of the deceased the Appellant could not find Gumuni, but saw the deceased sitting on a cot. The Appellant without finding Gumuni assaulted on the head and neck of the deceased by means of the axe saying as to why he kept his sister in his house who is regularly quarreling with him. He dealt 3-4 blows on the head and neck of the deceased. As a result of the assault, the deceased got severely injured and as other witnesses rushed hearing the shout, the Appellant fled away. The deceased was shifted to the hospital and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries after one month, i.e. on 11.02.2009.
3. F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of the deceased on the same day of occurrence, i.e. on 12th January, 2009 at about 8.15 P.M. which was registered as Bonai P.S. Case No. 2 dated 12th January 2009, initially for commission of offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and turned to a case of murder upon death of the deceased subsequently.
4. PW-15 Kanhu Charan Behera, the Sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation and arrested the accused without delay, i.e. on the same day of occurrence. He also visited the spot, examined the witnesses and collected sample earth as well as blood stained earth. The Appellant, while in police custody, disclosed the place of concealment of the weapon of offence, i.e. the axe and at his instance the same was recovered. The wearing apparels of the Appellant as well as of the deceased were also seized by PW-15.
5. The Appellant did not admit the guilt and took the plea of complete denial of prosecution allegations.
6. Prosecution in order to prove their case, examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents marked as Ext.1 to Ext.14. The wife of the deceased, who is the informant in the case, could not be examined as she died out of shock during treatment of the deceased in the hospital, i.e. before death of the deceased.
7. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defense.
8. The learned trial court based on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, viz. PWs. 4, 5, 6 and 13 as well as the evidence of other witnesses including the evidence of the autopsy doctor (PW-1), treating doctors (PWs. 2 and 12), convicted the Appellant with the finding that the prosecution has well proved the charge against the Appellant.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the trial court erroneously accepted PW-4, 5, 6 and 13 as eyewitnesses who are not so but post occurrence witnesses only and therefore, the conviction based on the evidence of such eyewitnesses is not sustainable. It is further contended that the Appellant had no intention to kill the deceased as reveals from the circumstances and as such, this is not a case of murder but is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within the ambit of Section 304-II of the I.P.C.
10. Before examining the contentions it needs to be seen at the outset about the nature of death of the deceased which must satisfy as homicidal as it is a case of murder. In this regard, the evidence of the doctors viz. PW-1, 2 and
