IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO, J.
Biswanath Sabar – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JCRLA No.6 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the prosecution case and trial (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. evidence and eyewitness accounts analyzed (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. culpable homicide and intention vs. knowledge (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. legal precedent on culpable homicide (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. conclusion and reduction of sentence (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. SAHOO, J.
The appellant Biswanath Sabar faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in S.T. Case No.16 of 2019 for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that on 01.01.2019 at about 3.30 p.m. at village Krushnapur under Serango police station, he committed murder of informant's father, namely, Rabi Sabar (hereinafter 'deceased') by assaulting him with a sharped 'kati' intentionally with the knowledge that death would be caused by such assault.
2. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2020 has been pleased to hold the appellant guilty under section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to suffer R.I. for a further period of six months.
The Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter 'F.I.R.') lodged by Puspanjali Bhuyan (P.W.4), the daughter of the deceased, in short, is that on 01.01.2019 during day time, on the eve of New Year, the villagers of Kujasingh, Seranga, Gajapati were organizing a feast in village Krushnapur. The deceased was engaged in repairing the fence and the informant invited him to attend the feast through her brother Jagannath Sabar (P.W.11). While P.W.11 and the deceased were coming together to attend the feast, on the way, the appellant on account of previous dispute assaulted the deceased by means of a sharped 'kati' on the back of his left leg. Hearing the shout of the deceased as well as P.W.11, the villagers rushed to the spot and seeing them, the appellant decamped from the spot and the deceased was found to have sustained serious bleeding injuries on the leg for which he was immediately shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Paralakhemundi. While undergoing treatment at the hospital, the deceased succumbed to his injuries at about 8.00 p.m.
4. The report was presented by P.W.4 on 02.01.2019 before the Inspector in-charge of Rayagada police station and accordingly, Rayagada P.S. Case No.01 dated 02.01.2019 was registered under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant. On registration of the case, the Inspector in-charge directed P.W.15 Karunakar Sahu, who was attached to Rayagada police station as S.I. of Police, to take up investigation of the case.
5. During course of investigation, P.W.15 examined the informant (P.W.4), took steps for guarding the dead body of the deceased and visited the spot, examined material witnesses, arrested the appellant on 03.01.2019. On the basis of the statement of the appellant, the weapon of offence i.e. sharp cutting 'kati' was recovered from a paddy bag and it was seized in the presence of the witnesses. The appellant was sent for medical examination, inquest over the dead body was conducted and it was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.15 received the post mortem report and he made a query to the doctor conducting post mortem examination regarding possibility of injury with the weapon seized at the instance of the appellant and received the report. The wearing apparels of the appellant were also seized and the charge of investigation was handed over on 30.03.2019 to P.W.21 Ratnanidhi Patra, who was also the S.I. of Police attached to Rayagada police station. P.W.21 also revisited the spot, reexamined the witnesses and received the sanction order from the Collector, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi a
The court found that the accused committed grievous hurt rather than murder, emphasizing the lack of intention to kill based on evidence of a single, non-lethal blow.
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....
Criminal Law – 'Murder’ and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ – Scope and meaning of terms - Accused was not carrying weapon rather they brought from home the blow was in act of sudden quar....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
The judgment established that culpable homicide can be classified as not amounting to murder when committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, as outlined in Excep....
The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and that not amounting to murder hinges on the presence of intention and the nature of the injury inflicted, defined under Sections 299 a....
The intention or knowledge of the actor is a crucial factor in determining whether an act falls within the ambit of Section 300 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part 1 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting....
Intent to kill was established through infliction of dagger wounds; original conviction for culpable homicide was incorrect as the act constituted murder as per IPC definitions.
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.