Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash , JJ.
Milu @ Rashmi Ranjan Jena – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 23 of 2014
Decided On : 31-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Bikram Chandra Ghadei Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Saswata Patnaik Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent.

The dying declaration made by the deceased was voluntarily made and in a conscious state of mind, and it was supported by witness testimonies, medical and forensic evidence, leading to the conviction of the accused for rape and murder.

Headnote:
Dying Declaration - Rape and Murder - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 376, Section 302 - The judgment discusses the dying declaration made by the deceased, implicating the accused of both rape and murder. The court analyzes the legal position regarding dying declarations and concludes that the dying declaration was voluntarily made by the deceased and in a conscious state of mind. The court also highlights the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, the medical and forensic evidence, and the lack of forensic corroboration of the dying declaration.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased, an adolescent minor girl, was raped and set on fire by the accused, resulting in her death. The prosecution's case was supported by the dying declaration of the deceased, witness testimonies, and medical and forensic evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court found the accused guilty of raping and murdering the deceased based on the dying declaration, witness testimonies, and medical and forensic evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the dying declaration, the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, and the forensic corroboration of the dying declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles governing dying declarations, the need for scrutiny of the dying declaration, and the assessment of the deceased's state of mind at the time of making the dying declaration. The court also highlighted the significance of witness testimonies and forensic evidence in corroborating the dying declaration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial Court's decision to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 302 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th December 2013, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.37/365 of 2013/2012, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for seven years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo RI for a period of six months and further convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo RI for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court found the Appellant guilty of raping and murdering by setting on fire an adolescent minor girl of 15 years.

3. The case of the prosecution as spoken to by Ranjana Swain (PW-1), the mother of the deceased, was that the deceased was in friendly terms with the Appellant which was disapproved by the family members of the deceased. They asked the deceased to discontinue her relationship with the Appellant despite which, the deceased was stated to be still seeing him.

4. Further the case of the prosecution as spoken to by PW-1 was that in the night of 10th May, 2012 at around 2 am, when the deceased was sleeping with her grandmother in a room which was adjacent to the room in which PW-1 was sleeping with her husband, Nimai Swain (PW-4), the Appellant entered the house and called the deceased away. He is stated to have sexually assaulted her inside the mill. On her insisting that if the Appellant refused to marry her she would disclose the fact before the family members, the Appellant is stated to have poured kerosene kept in a jerry can in the mill and set the deceased on fire.

5. Hearing the shouts of the deceased, Pabitra Kumar Swain (PW5) and Rinku Swain (PW-6) rushed to the mill as they were out to attend nature's call at that time. According to them, the rice mill (huller) was about 35 cubits from where they were. By the time they reached there, they noticed the Appellant who gave PW-5 a push blow and escaped from the spot. PWs-5 and 6 immediately tried to save the life of the deceased by pouring water on her body. Thereafter, they shouted for help. Hearing their hullah, other family members living nearby came to the spot. They took the deceased first to the house when she was still in a conscious state and she disclosed before PWs 5, 6 and PW-1 that she had been called by the Appellant at the dead hour of the night to the rice huller, where he committed rape on her and when she insisted that he should marry her, the Appellant sprinkled kerosene on her body and set her on fire.

6. PWs 5 and 6 arranged to take the deceased first to the hospital at Rebena Nuagaon and thereafter to the District Headquarters Hospital (DHH), Puri where she was attended to by Dr. Chintamani Tripathy (PW-8) in the burns ward. PW-8 is stated to have recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at around 9 pm on 11th May, 2012. The deceased finally succumbed to the burn injuries and died on 13th May, 2012 around noon. Thereafter, her post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Susanta Kumar Panda (PW-9) who opined that the cause of death was due to septicaemia from anti-mortem burns which was more than 95%. It was at this stage that the vaginal swab was collected and sent for pathological examination.

7. Srikanta Kumar Tripathy (PW-10) was the Sub-Inspector of Police (SI) attached to the Puri Sadar Police Station (PS), before whom a written report was presented on 11th May, 2012. After registering the FIR under Sections 376/326/307 of IPC, he took up investigation and in course thereof, on 15th May, 2012 effected the arrest of the Appellant from village Sahanikera. After the receipt of the information of death of the deceased on 13th May 2012, the offence was converted to Section 302 IPC apart from Section 376 IPC. Certain exhibits we