IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BISWANATH RATH, M.S. SAHOO, JJ.
Sangadi Sania - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
JCRLA No. 34 of 2005
Decided on : 02-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges against the appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detailed account of the prosecution's case and incident specifics. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. confirmation of evidence and trial witness list. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments by the defense questioning the prosecution's evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's evaluation of evidence and testimonies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. distinctions between culpable homicide and murder. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 21) |
| 7. final judgment and sentence modification. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
M.S.SAHOO, J
The appellant, in the present Jail Criminal Appeal, Sangadi Sania, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.4.2003 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore for finding him guilty of committing offence punishable U/s.302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) or in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months after completion of Criminal Trial No.44 of 2012, arising out of G.R. Case No.451/2000, corresponding to Pottangi P.S. Case No.32 of 2000 committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput.
Factual Matrix
2. The appellant was the sole accused facing trial before the learned Sessions Court. The incident alleged, occurred on 21.07.2000 at about 8.00 P.M. in village Sishaguda within the jurisdiction of Potttangi Police Station in the district of Koraput. The first information report (FIR for short) was lodged at about 9.00 P.M. on 21.07.2000 in the concerned Police Station after which the P.S. Case No. 32 of 2000 was registered by the Officer-in-charge.
2.1. The FIR was orally stated before the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station who reduced the oral statement into writing in Oriya. The informant-Gumurabali Syama (P.W.4) put his thumb impression after the contents of the F.I.R. was explained and read over to him. Translated to English the F.I.R. narrates as follows :
“I, Gumurabali Syama, son of late Gumurabali Mulia, aged about 27 years, resident of village Sishaguda, P.S. Pottangi. Dist.Koraput today on 21.07.2000, 9.00 P.M. along with my co-villager Majhi Balu having come to the Police Station, lodge the F.I.R. orally that younger brother of Songadi Sonia has married my younger sister. Earlier my brother Gumurabali Sukra had altercation (madagola) with Sonagadi Sania. Today i.e. 21.7.2000 Friday at about 8.00 P.M. in the evening my brother Sukra after having his food was at home. At that time Songadi Sania went and called my brother as “Samudhi”. Sukra listening to the call came out of house. After Sukra came out of house Sania without any further talk, stabbed Sukra with knife three to four times. My brother Sukra shouted Pesi Sania stabbed with knife. Me and Majhi Balu listening his call came out. While trying to hold Sukra, he felled down, intestine came out, he died at the said spot. Sania went away and hid him somewhere. Hearing the shout, persons from our Sahi came and saw that my brother in front of his house, where he was stabbed, was lying dead. He had bleeding injuries at chest and stomach. His intestines came out. The writing has been made as per my statement which was heard by me read by the Babu. The same being correct, I put my thumb impression.
3. We heard the detailed arguments of Mr.Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned Legal Aid counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prem Pattanaik, then functioning as a learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State have filed their written argument after exchanging copies thereof.
Prosecution Case
4. In the trial Prosecution alleged that the accused Sangadi Sania and deceased Gumuraballi Sukra had prior enmity. On 21.07.2000 at 8.00 P.M. in the night, while the deceased and his wife were in their house, the accused came there and called the deceased by saying “Samudhi- Samudhi” and when the decease
Conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence linking the accused to the weapon used in the crim....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) IPC, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the presence o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide was clarified, emphasizing the necessity of intent in determining the degree of culpability.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, ruling that the appellant's act was committed in the heat of passion without premeditation, thus constituting culpable homicide not amoun....
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.