Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. MURALIDHAR, R.K. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Kuna @ Bhagwan Patra - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JCRLA No.28, 29 of 2012
Decided on : 08-08-2022
Dying Declaration - Criminal Law - Section 302/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the dying declaration of the deceased, the recovery evidence, motive for the crime, and the cause of death. The court analyzes the dying declaration, the recovery of the weapon, the motive for the crime, and the cause of death, and concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found with severe bleeding injuries, and a dying declaration was recorded. The trial court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302/34 IPC due to discrepancies in the recovery evidence, lack of motive for the crime, and the cause of death not being directly linked to the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the dying declaration, the credibility of the recovery evidence, the motive for the crime, and the cause of death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to conclusively establish guilt, and the importance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court also highlighted the significance of the cause of death in determining the accused's culpability.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC were set aside, and the accused were convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment each.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These appeals are directed against an order dated 19th January, 2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.115/54 of 2010 convicting each of the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-each and in default to undergo RI for one month.
Case of the prosecution
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3rd May, 2012 at around 10 pm the informant Sribatchya Kumar Rout (PW 2) returned from his work and found that in front of his house, one Bharat Bahadur (hereafter the ‘deceased’)was lying with severe bleeding injuries on his body. On inquiry, the deceased informed him that both the present accused had caused the said injuries. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged at Sector 7 Police Station in Rourkela. Sri Jyotimaya Bhukta (PW 15) who was the Investigating Officer (IO) visited the spot and sent the injured for medical examination. He arrested the accused persons on 6th May, 2010 and seized the wearing apparels. From the spot, he seized the sample earth, blood-stained earth and the blood-stained shirt of the deceased.
3. During the course of investigation, PW 15 sent a requisition to the Sub-Collector for deputation of an Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of the deceased which was then recorded. He sent the weapon of offence for chemical examination and also seized the bed head ticket after seeing the post mortem examination and, therefore, led the charge sheet against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses. No witness was examined for the defence.
Trial Court judgment
4. The trial Court began the analysis of the evidence by noticing that PW 2 had proved the FIR and corroborated the narration therein in all the material particulars. Puspa Bindhani (PW 3) spoke about hearing the hue and cry and opening her door to find that the deceased had rushed to her house and was asking for some water. She noticed the injuries on the body of the deceased. After reaching the house, the deceased became senseless.
5. Maya Mustan (PW 4) was the eldest sister of the deceased. She reached the hospital on getting the information that the deceased had been admitted there. On enquiring about the deceased, he disclosed to her that Kuna @ Bhagaban Patra (Accused No.1-A1) had stabbed him with a knife whereas Jiten Kumar Das (Accused No.2-A2) was standing there. Pratima Kumbhar (PW 5) stated that the deceased rushed to her house and told her that A-1 had assaulted him with a knife. The deceased was asking her for a weapon to take revenge on the accused.
6. There were three medical officers who were examined. Dr. Surya Kanta Nayak (PW 8) was on emergency duty at 2 am on 3rd May, 2010 when the deceased was admitted in the surgery ward.
He referred the deceased to the surgeon Dr. Kaushalya Pradhan (PW 13) who stated that the deceased was under the treatment of Dr. P.C. Mohapatra (PW 14). PW 13 had assisted PW 14 during the surgical operation. PW 14 stated that he had examined the deceased on 3rd May, 2010 and found stab injuries on the abdomen. At around 12.30 pm PW 14 conducted the surgery and repaired two stab wounds and again on 5th May, 2010 he conducted the second operation after which the general condition of the deceased is stated to have been improved.
7. PW 11 Dr. Rajat Ranjan Sadwal who was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
2. There are two surgical drain incised wounds on the both lower anterior lateral abdomen wall antemortem in nature, 24 to 48 hours.
3. One right para median incision wound of 17 cm long, from label 2” below umbi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
