IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D. Dash, S.K. Panigrahi, JJ.
Atmananda Kharsel & Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
CRLA NO.738 of 2021
Decided On : 05-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments from the defense and prosecution (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis and modification of conviction (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. final ratio decidendi on conviction under section 304-i (Para 11) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
D.Dash, J.
The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Sessions Trial Case No.04 of 2013, arising out of G.R. Case No.1548 of 2012, corresponding to Katarbaga P.S. Case No.41 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Sambalpur.
These Appellants (accused persons) with their parents namely, Bhaktaram and Urmila standing charged for commission of offence under section- 341/294/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’) having faced the trial have only been convicted for the commission of offence under section-302/34 of the ; whereas their parents as above named have been acquitted of all the charges. Accordingly, these accused persons have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each with further stipulation that out of realized fine a sum of Rs.8,000/- would be paid to the Informant (P.W.2) who happens to be the son of the deceased.
2. Prosecution case is that on 05.09.2012, during evening hour; it was around 5.30 pm, when Khaira Bag (deceased) was going with one Manoj Purohit (P.W.3) being followed by one Ganesh Podh (P.W.6) to the village pond to ease, Urmila @ Undei, the wife of Bhaktaram and Bhaktaram (since acquitted), with their two sons, the present accused persons being armed with spade, suddenly attacked Khaira. Being instigated by their mother-Urmila both the accused persons dealt blows on the blunt side of the spade on the several parts of the body including the vital part i.e. on head of Khaira Bag. There was hue and cry and when the villagers congregated, the accused persons fled from the spot. When the health condition of Khaira become serious, he was shifted to the nearest Hospital at Laida in a vehicle. The Medical Officer present at Laida Hospital, referred the case to VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla for better treatment on 08.09.2012 around 6.30 pm, the son of Khaira namely, Kartika (P.W.2), then prosecuted a written report scribed by one Amit Kumar Sahu (P.W.1) with the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Police of Laida Outpost. The ASI having received the said written report entered the fact in the Station Diary Book maintained in the Police Outpost and then sent it to the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC), Katarbaga Police Station for registration of the case. The IIC (I.O.-P.W.13), registered the case by treating the said written report of P.W.2 as the F.I.R.(Ext.1) and having registered the case, took up investigation. He first of all issued injury requisition of the Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Laida. He having examined P.W.2 and also other witnesses, visited the spot and prepared spot map (Ext.8). He seized one Napkin stand with blood belonging to Khaira on production of his son P.W.2, which he seized under seizure list, Ext.3. He then seized other incriminating materials in presence of the witnesses under seizure lists. Khaira in course of treatment died on 08.09.2012. He then inquest over the dead body and prepared report, Ext.2 in presence of the witnesses. He also sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The postmortem was conducted over the dead body of the deceased.
3. On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.13) submitted the Final Form, placing these accused persons with their parents to face the trial for commission of offence under section-302/34 of the IPC .
4. Learned S.D.J.M, Sambalpur having received the Final Form, took cognizance of th
Accused's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent and premeditation.
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder based on reliable eyewitness testimony and medical evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Murder – A reasoned judgment of conviction and order of sentence must receive seal of confirmation.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the reliability of evidence, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness statements undermined the conviction, leading to its reversal.
The court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt while recognizing the lack of intent to ki....
Evidence must be consistent and reliable to uphold a conviction; inherent improbabilities can lead to a verdict of not guilty.
It is possible that passion was running very high between the parties and when the quarrel between the two appellants and the deceased as well as his wife was going on in the courtyard of the house o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'benefit of doubt' in criminal cases, where inconsistencies and doubts in the evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
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.