Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO, J.
Gousinga Chandan – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JCRLA No. 70 of 2019
Decided On : 01-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chitta Ranjan Sahoo
For the Respondent: Rajesh Tripathy

Legal insanity must be proven for an acquittal; inconsistencies between eyewitness and medical evidence undermine the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 323, and 304 Part-I - Accused charged with murder of mother and assault on uncle - Convicted under section 304 Part-I and 323, sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine, which was subsequently set aside on appeal. (Para 11)

(B) Insanity Defense - Under section 84 of the IPC, legal insanity must be proven, not merely medical insanity. The appellant's defense of insanity was not established as necessary evidence was lacking. (Paras 8-10)

(C) Witness Credibility - Ocular evidence must be corroborated by medical evidence; contradictions between them undermined the prosecution's case. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his mother and injuring his uncle during an altercation on 14.01.2016. The trial court convicted him based on eyewitness testimony and medical examination, which later proved inconsistent.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision found deficiencies in eyewitness reliability and medical corroboration, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction.

Issues: The key issues included whether the prosecution established murder beyond reasonable doubt and whether the defense of insanity was applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for solid medical backing for ocular testimony, ruling that without sufficient evidence of insanity, the conviction couldn't stand.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

Table of Content
1. brief overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's conclusion based on evidence assessment. (Para 6)
3. arguments regarding the validity and reliability of witness testimonies. (Para 7)
4. discussion on insanity and legal standards under ipc. (Para 8 , 9)
5. final orders and implications of the judgment. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J

1. This is a case of matricide. The appellant Gousinga Chandan faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh in Criminal Trial No.22 of 2016 (Sessions) for commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 14.01.2016 in between 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., at village Gotabandh, he committed murder of his mother Gurubari Chandan (hereafter ‘the deceased’) and also voluntarily caused hurt to his paternal uncle Balabhadra Chandan (P.W.10).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2019 found the appellant guilty under sections 304 Part-I and 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months for the offence under section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 323 of the I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14.01.2016 in between 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., while P.W.10 Balabhadra Chandan was present in his house, he heard cries of the deceased, who was his sister-in-law. When P.W.10 rushed to the spot, he found that the appellant was assaulting the deceased by one ‘Pahuruni’ (thenga) mercilessly and there were bleeding injuries on the deceased. When P.W.10 prevented the appellant, he was also assaulted by the appellant for which he also sustained head injury. P.W.10 shouted to draw the attention of others and accordingly, some of the co-villagers arrived at the scene of occurrence and they snatched away the ‘Pahuruni’ (thenga) from the hands of the appellant. The deceased was immediately shifted to C.H.C., Koksara in an ambulance, however, the doctor on medical examination, declared her dead.

On the written report of P.W.10, Koksara P.S. Case No.10 of 2016 was registered under sections 302 and 323 of the I.P.C. against the appellant. P.W.20 Om Prasad Patra, the Inspector in-charge of Koksara police station after registration of the case, took up investigation of the case. He examined the witnesses, sent the injured (P.W.10) to C.H.C., Koksara and obtained his medical examination report. He himself came to the C.H.C., Koksara and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. He then conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.4 and also sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. On production by P.W.10, he seized the ‘Pahuruni’ (thenga) under seizure list Ext.6. He visited the spot, collected sample earth and blood-stained earth, prepared the spot map, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, biological samples of the deceased, arrested the appellant and forwarded him to the Court on 15.01.2016. The I.O. then sent the weapon of offence to the doctor (P.W.19) and obtained opinion regarding possibility of injury on the deceased by such weapon, and on completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellant on 11.05.2016 under sections 302 and 323 of the I.P.C.

3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session where the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.

4. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial.

5. During