IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Nakhia @ Laxmidhar Dehury – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 188 of 2016
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Injured Eye-Witness - Murder - IPC 302, IPC 324 - The court discussed the testimonies of the injured eye-witness and other villagers, the medical evidence, and the special status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness. The court highlighted the reliability of the injured eye-witness testimony and the corroboration by medical evidence in convicting the accused under IPC 302 and IPC 324.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC for attacking the deceased and his wife with a sword, resulting in the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the injured eye-witness testimony to be reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC.
Issues: Reliability of the injured eye-witness testimony, corroboration by medical evidence, and inconsistencies in the testimonies of other eye-witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The injured eye-witness testimony deserves the highest consideration, and the special status accorded to it in law, along with corroboration by medical evidence, influenced the court's decision in convicting the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th March, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athgarh in S.T. Case No.56 of 2015 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and Section 324 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12th April 2015, the informant Lova Behera (PW-7), the wife of the deceased Sugribara Behera of Bailo, was spreading green gram in the farmyard. At that time, the accused-Appellant abused PW-7 in filthy language protested against the spreading of green gram there. PW-7 then returned to her house. On the same day at around 6 pm, while PW-7 and the deceased were stacking green gram in the farmyard, the Appellant being armed with sword came there; abused the deceased in filthy language and assaulted him with a sword on his head, neck and hand. When PW-7 came to the rescue of her deceased-husband, the Appellant also assaulted her by means of a sword on her head causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, both the deceased and PW-7 were removed to Athgarh hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. The matter was then reported to the Police Station (PS) and registered as P.S. Case No.80 of 2015.
3. The Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-15), Gangadhar Panigrahi, reached the spot and took up the investigation. He seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, blood samples and one certificate on production by Constable Sribatsha Padhan. Upon arrest, the accused made a statement on the basis of which the police were able to recover, upon his showing, his black colour pant, one white colour check shirt and one yellow colour napkin, all of which were seized by PW-15.
4. Meanwhile, the report of the postmortem conducted by the Medical Officer (MO) (PW-11) was made available. PW-11 also confirmed that the sword shown to him could cause the injuries found on the body of the deceased.
5. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 294 of IPC. The accused then pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. For the prosecution, as many as fifteen witnesses were examined and none for the defence.
7. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court acquitted the Appellant of the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC. The trial Court then proceeded to sentence the Appellant in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
9. This was a case based on direct evidence and the star witness to the prosecution was the wife of the deceased, i.e., PW-7 who was also the injured eye-witness and informant of this case. Besides her, PWs-1 to 4, 8 and 9 were witnesses to the occurrence. PWs-5, 6, 12 and 13 were the witnesses to the seizure. The MO, who examined the informant, was PW-10, whereas the MO, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, was PW- 11. PW-14 was the Scientific Officer.
10. PW-7 narrated that while she was spreading green gram adjoining to her house, the Appellant came and abused her in filthy language protesting against her spreading of green gram there. She returned to her house without replying. She narrated the incident to her husband. Later, in the evening at around 6 pm, when she and her husband were stacking green gram near Kothaghara, the Appellant
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. (2009) 12 SCC 546
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673
Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 6 SCC 447
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719
Krishan v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 459
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.
Mohar v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 606
Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp3 SCC 235
The injured eye-witness testimony holds great evidentiary value and should be relied upon unless compelling reasons exist to discard it.
The evidence of an injured witness is accorded special status in law, and their testimony is generally reliable unless substantial contradictions are present. The court emphasized the importance of e....
The testimony of injured witnesses is highly credible, and direct evidence can establish guilt without needing to prove motive.
The testimonies of injured eye witnesses and the recovery of the weapon of offence hold special evidentiary status and can be relied upon to establish guilt.
The testimony of injured witnesses holds significant evidentiary value, and their accounts should not be dismissed without compelling reasons, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
The higher evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot be considered mat....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law, and the absence of motive does not weaken the case if there is clear and unambiguous direct evidence.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be upheld on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.