IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
D. Dash, S.K. Panigrahi, JJ.
Rabindra Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
JCRLA No. 106 of 2017
Decided On : 06-04-2023
MURDER - Homicide and Attempted Murder - IPC Sections 302, 307, 201 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). It interpreted Section 302 as requiring proof of intent to kill, which was not established against the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies. However, the court upheld the conviction under Section 307, finding sufficient evidence of an attempt to murder the injured witness, the accused's wife, based on her credible testimony and medical evidence of her injuries.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Sadananda Behera and attempted murder of his wife, Sebati Behera, following an incident where Sadananda was called outside and subsequently attacked with a katari. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including family members, to establish the events leading to Sadananda's death and Sebati's injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sadananda's death was homicidal, but the evidence against the accused for murder was inconsistent and unreliable. The testimonies of the eye witnesses varied significantly, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt under Section 302. However, the court confirmed the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307, as the evidence clearly indicated the accused's assault on his wife.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC and whether the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for consistent and reliable evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly for serious charges like murder. It distinguished between the evidence related to the murder charge and the attempted murder charge, ultimately finding the latter sufficiently supported by credible testimony.
Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed; the conviction for murder under Section 302 and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 was set aside, while the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 was upheld.
JUDGMENT
D.Dash, J.
The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the Jail, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th August, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No.21/232 of 2013 arising out of C.T. Case No.422 of 2013 corresponding to Remuna P.S. Case No.18 of 2013 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Baleswar.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/307/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years for commission of the offence under section 302 IPC; imprisonment for ten (10) years and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) years for the offence under section 307 IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for three (3) years and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence under section 201 IPC with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.
2. Prosecution Case:-
In the night of 15.02.2013, Sebati Behera, the wife of Sadananda Behera with her daughter had gone to her father's house leaving her husband and another daughter, namely, Sarmila Behera in their house. When Sadananda and his daughter in the night were going to sleep, accused Rabindra called Sadananda (deceased). It was around 11.30 p.m. Accused called the deceased to come outside and accordingly, the deceased, leaving Sarmila his daughter in the house. The deceased, while leaving, told Sarmila that he would come after a short period. When the deceased did not return home over a considerable period of time since his leaving the place, Sarmila carrying a torch light came outside. She then heard some sound near the house of accused Rabindra. So, she went there and then saw accused Rabindra giving katari blows on her father when Prahallad (since acquitted) was holding one hand of her father with a knife on his other hand and two other persons, covering their faces with black clothes, were standing nearby. Seeing this, when she cried, those two persons, who had covered their faces and were standing near the place where deceased was being assaulted, rushed at her and threatened Sarmila to take away her life if she would disclose the fact to anybody. They then bolted the door from outside by putting her inside the house. On the next morning, Ratnakar Nath (Informant) came to their house and called his son-in-law Sadananda, as if inside the house. Sarmila then started crying and opened the door of the house and described the incident of the previous night before her maternal grandfather (Informant). The wife of the deceased, namely, Sebati Behera was informed. Thereafter, when they went to the riverbank, they saw the dead body of Sadananda floating there. The father-in-law of the deceased Ratnakar Nath then lodged a written report with the Inspectorin-Charge (IIC) of Remuna Police Station, which being treated as FIR, the investigation commenced.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O) examined the Informant, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1). He then proceeded to the spot and requisitioned the service of the members of the scientific team available in the headquarters. He prepared the spot map and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sadananda. The inquest report (Ext.4) was prepared. He also issued requisition for post mortem examination of the dead body. He seized the blood stained lungi and woolen chadar of the deceased under seizure list (Ext.6). The house of the accused was inspected and from there, blood stained earth, sample earth, small bamboo plank and one plastic mat were seized vide the seizure list (Ext.7). He also issued
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies can create reasonable doubt in murder cases, while credible evidence of an assault can sustain a conviction for attempted murder even....
Eyewitness testimony holds credibility even when minor contradictions exist; motive for crime established through related witness accounts legitimizes conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Appellate courts can modify sentences based on rehabilitation of the offender and time elapsed since the crime while ensuring the conviction is supported by credible evidence.
Evidence must be consistent and reliable to uphold a conviction; inherent improbabilities can lead to a verdict of not guilty.
The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
A killing in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel may reduce culpability from murder to manslaughter under Exception-4 of IPC.
The conviction was modified from Section 304(Part-II) to Section 325 of IPC, establishing that while the actions resulted in serious injury, they did not demonstrate the intent necessary for murder.
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.