IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Talapatra, M.S. Sahoo, JJ.
Jhituku Paraja – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JCRLA NO.61 of 2014 (From the judgment and order dated 12.06.2014 passed by Shri Prasanna Kumar Hota, Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No. 1 of 2012.)
Decided On : 09-09-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - [FACTS OF THE CASE] - [FINDING OF THE COURT] - [ISSUES] - [RATIO DECIDENDI] - [FINAL DECISION]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), convicted U/ss.235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, after completion of criminal trial No.1/2012 (arising out of G.R. Case No.476/2011, corresponding to Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.113 of 2011 committed by the S.D.J.M., Jeypore).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the author of the crime. The court noted that there were material inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who had been treated to be the eyewitnesses, and that these inconsistencies could not be ignored when the requirement of standard of proof was proving to the hilt, beyond all reasonable doubts.
Issues: Whether the accused on 6.9.2011 night at about 11.00 p.m. at village-Kadamuguda committed the murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of his covillager Parsu Pujari?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had not been able to prove that the accused is the author of the crime beyond all reasonable doubt. The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand (supra), regarding the appreciation of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and held that the material inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, who have been treated to be the eyewitnesses based on which a verdict of guilt has been returned by the learned trial court fundamentally affects the prosecution story and the material inconsistencies cannot be ignored, when the requirement of standard of proof is proving to the hilt, beyond all reasonable doubts.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and accordingly the judgment dated 12.06.2014 of the learned trial court in Criminal Trial No. 1 of 2012 is set aside. The appellant is to be set at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case.
JUDGMENT
M.S.Sahoo, J - The appellant, in the present Jail Criminal Appeal, Jhituku Paraja is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore dated 12.06.2014 convicting him for offence punishable U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), convicted U/ss.235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, after completion of criminal trial No.1/2012 (arising out of G.R. Case No.476/2011, corresponding to Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.113 of 2011 committed by the S.D.J.M., Jeypore).
2. Before the learned Sessions Court, the appellant was the sole accused. The incident out of which the proceeding arose occurred on 06.09.2011 at about 11.00 P.M. in VillageKadamguda within the jurisdiction of Jeypore Sadar Police Station in the district of Koraput. The First Information Report ('FIR' for short) was lodged at about 8.15 A.M. on 07.09.2011. The I.I.C. Jeypore Sadar P.S., Koraput registered P.S. Case No.113 of 2011 and took up the investigation of the case.
3. The FIR written by one Ghenu Muduli (P.W.5) marked as Ext.2 before the learned Sessions Court, as per the statement of the informant-Somanath Pujari, written in Odia. Translated to English the FIR describes the following:-
'I, Somanath Pujari, S/O- Late Parsu Pujari, resident of Kadamguda, Police Station-Jeypore Sadar, Dist.- Koraput giving this written information that my father Parsu Pujari had brought and broken stones of Jhituku Paraja of our village, therefore Jhituku Paraja used to always quarrel with my father. Yesterday, Tuesday (Dt.06.09.2011) night at about 11 P.M., Jhituku Paraja while quarrelling with my father regarding the issue of breaking of stones near his house brought 'tangia' from his house inflicted cuts on my father's chest and face resulting in lot of bleeding. My father died immediately there. After seeing the same, me and my co-villagers Hari Pujari, Sunadhara Pujari and Chakra Muduli and others ran to Catch hold of Jhituku Paraja but he ran away in the darkness after throwing the 'tangia' at the place of occurrence. We searched a lot but could not find him. This incident has been also seen by the daughter of the accused, Soshi Paraja and son Suna Paraja. My father, Parsu Pujari died as Jhituku Paraja of our village inflicted cut injury on him with a 'tangia'.
Therefore, it is informed the culprit must be caught and punished.'
4. Prosecution alleged that the deceased Parsu Pujari and accused Jhituku Pujari, both inhabitants of village Kadamguda, were earning their livelihood by selling small stones after collecting and breaking bigger pieces of stone. It is alleged, some days prior to the occurrence the deceased had taken some big stones collected by the accused, had broken the same into small pieces and sold them, for which there was a quarrel between them. On the fateful night, i.e., on 06.09.2011 at about 11.00 P.M. there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, near the house of the accused relating to the issue of breaking and selling of stones by the deceased. The accused brought a 'tangia' from his house and gave blows on the chest and the face of the deceased that led to severe bleeding injury and the deceased died at the spot.
5. The prosecution narration further reveals at that time Somanath Pujari (P.W.2), son of the deceased, informant before the police, was present at some distance from the spot along with other co-villagers, namely, Hari Pujari, Sunadhara Pujari (P.W.6) and Chakra Muduli (P.W.3). They rushed to the spot and chased the accused. The accused-appellant vanished into darkness after throwing the weapon of offence : 'Tangia' at the spot and they could not catch hold of him.
6. It is further narrated that after the FIR was lodged on 07.09.2011, the Inspector-in-charge of Jeypore Sadar
Arulvelu & another v. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor and another : (2009) 10 SCC 206
Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat: (2019) 6 SCC 535
Balwan Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh : (2019) 7 SCC 781
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205
Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 11 SCC 768
John Pandian v. State of Tamilnadu: (2010) 14 SCC 129
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808 ]
Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [(1999) 9 SCC 525 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 222]
Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar : (2002) 1 SCC 351
Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan: (2018) 8 SCC 127
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala: (2013) 14 SCC 266
Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs The State of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1963 SC 74
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala: AIR 1966 SC 1974
Rammi v. State of Madhya Pradesh :1999(8) SCC 649
Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210
Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra : (2008) 3 SCC 210: A 2008 SC 1184
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharastra : 1984 4 SCC 116
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram: (1999) 3 SCC 507
State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105]
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
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.