Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Bulu alias Ranjit Swain – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial No.25/157/1998, whereby the appellant, who was tried along with co-accused Kalia @ Saroj Praharaj, has been found guilty of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC. The co-accused Kalia @ Saroj has been acquitted of all the charges. In lieu of the conviction of the appellant, the trial court has awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Heard Mr. Byomakesh Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the State.
3. From the record, it reveals that the appellant was arrested in the present case on 28.02.1998. He was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2002. Therefore, the appellant has undergone more than four years in custody.
4. The allegation of the prosecution in the present case is that on 02.02.1999 at about 3.30 P.M. Ganju Bindhani (deceased) was present near Saraswati Puja Pendal at Balijodi. It is alleged that the present appellant along with co-accused Kalia wrongfully restrained Ganju, abused him and thereafter killed him by stabbin
The conviction for murder under Section 304(Part-II) is upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony, while the sentence is modified considering the appellant's age and time served.
Evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony can support a conviction even if the witness is related to the victim, provided the testimony is credible and corroborated by additional evidence.
Reliance on prosecution witnesses, applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.
Point of Law : It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent.
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declaration as a sole basis for conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC, the interpretation of Section 498A of IPC, and the ap....
It is quite clear that if dying declaration dying declaration is absolutely credible and nothing is brought on record that deceased was in such a condition, he or she could not have made a dying decl....
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
