Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
B. Srinu @ Bobilli Srinu & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRA No. 123 of 1996 with CRA No. 137 of 1996
Decided On : 20-09-2022
False Implications - Murder - Section 302, 34 IPC - The judgment discusses the evidence of the prosecution, the injured eye-witness, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also addresses the issues raised by the defense, such as the correction of the date in the FIR, the time of occurrence, the recovery of weapons, and the maintenance of the case diary. The court ultimately dismisses the appeals and cancels the bail bonds of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder of Basa @ Bhaskar Rao by four accused persons, who were convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The prosecution presented evidence of the incident, including the testimony of the injured eye-witness and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the injured eye-witness to be reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also addressed the issues raised by the defense but ultimately dismissed the appeals and canceled the bail bonds of the appellants.
Issues: The issues included the correction of the date in the FIR, the time of occurrence, the recovery of weapons, and the maintenance of the case diary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of the injured eye-witness testimony and the corroboration by medical evidence. The court also considered the admissibility of the recovery of weapons and the maintenance of the case diary.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the bail bonds of the appellants were canceled. The appellants were directed to surrender forthwith or face apprehension by the police.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 12th April 1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.73 of 1993, convicting the Appellants, i.e., the Accused No.3 (A-3), B. Srinu @ Bobili Srinu and Accused No.1 (A-1), B. Govinda @ B. Govinda Rao (in CRA No.123 of 1996) and Accused No.2 (A-2), Medi Srinu @ M. Sriniwas Rao and Accused No.4 (A-4), Allam Umashankar Rao (in CRA No.137 of 1996) respectively for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life. In addition to the sentence for imprisonment for life, Umashankar Rao (A-4) was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months.
2. At the outset, it must be mentioned that six persons were sent up for trial in the aforementioned Sessions case for causing the death of one Basa @ Bhaskar Rao by means of knives and other weapons in furtherance of their common intention.
3. It must be noticed here that while the Appellant No.2, B. Govinda @ B. Govinda Rao (in CRA No.123 of 1996) was enlarged on bail by an order dated 23rd July, 1996, the Appellant No.1, B. Srinu @ Bobili Srinu (in CRA No.123 of 1996) was enlarged on bail by an order dated 1st October, 2004. Further, the Appellant No.2, Allam Umashankar Rao (in CRA No.137 of 1996) was enlarged on bail by an order dated 23rd July, 1996 and the Appellant No.1, Medi Srinu @ M. Sriniwas Rao (in CRA No.137 of 1996) was enlarged on bail by an order dated 1st October, 2004.
Case of the prosecution
4. The case of the prosecution is that the families of the deceased Basa @ Bhaskar Rao and the families of the accused Govinda Rao had inter-se disputes between them two or three days prior to the incident. On account of such ill-feeling, the accused Govinda, his brothers and friends were giving threats to kill the deceased.
5. On 10th February, 1993 at around 9 pm, outside the Clinic of one Dr. Y.R. Rao on the main road, the deceased, the informant B. Purna Chandra Rao (PW-1) and one Konchada Srinu (PW-2) were talking to each other. At that time, the accused Medi Srinu (A-2) armed with a knife, accused Allam Umashankar Rao (A-4) armed with a ploughshare, accused Bobili Srinu (A-3) being armed with a spring knife and B. Govinda Rao (A-1) armed with an iron chain, appeared before them and started picking up a quarrel. A-2 was stated to have stabbed the deceased on the abdomen and chest, while A-3 was stated to have stabbed the deceased on the chest. A-1, winding the iron chain around his hand, gave a fist blow on the face of the deceased and A-4, while attempting to assault the deceased by means of the ploughshare, was obstructed by PW-1, who was then hit on his right shoulder and suffered an injury. On account of the above assault, the deceased fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries.
6. Konchada Srinu (PW-2) and one T. Suresh Kumar (PW-11) rushed the deceased to the Rayagada Government Hospital by a scooter. However, the deceased died on the way.
7. Bibhudendu Kumar Aich (PW-13), the Investigating Officer (IO), attached to the Rayagada PS as Sub-Inspector, was present at the Police Station (PS) on 10th February, 1993 at around 9.30 pm, when PW-1 appeared there and orally reported to him about the occurrence. He noted that one Gangadhar Patra (PW-3) had accompanied PW-1 to the PS. He reduced the information to writing and registered an FIR and took up the investigation. PW-1 was sent for medical examination.
8. On the following day, i.e., 11th February, 1993 at around 8.20 am, he held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He visited the spot, seized the blood-stained earth, sample earth and at 3.00 pm, he arrested the aforementioned accused persons, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and examined them.
9. A-3 was stated to have made a statement while under arrest and led the IO and witnesses to a drain on the eastern
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
: Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a solitary eye witness provided the witness is trustworthy.
The testimony of injured eyewitnesses is accorded special status, supporting conviction based on consistent accounts despite one witness turning hostile, establishing the appellant's guilt with corro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on quality evidence, including eyewitness testimony, corroborative evidence, and forensic reports, to establish the guilt of the accus....
The court established that a common intention among co-accused can lead to joint liability for murder, even if not all participants inflicted the fatal blow, provided their actions collectively demon....
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
