SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 644

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.R.N. Nayak, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.S.S.Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304-I - Conviction for murder - Appellants convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I IPC - Insufficient evidence for premeditation or intent to kill - Sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine. (Paras 11, 12)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing the accused's intent and actions during the incident. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The accused, together with their mother, attacked the deceased with a spade, leading to significant injuries resulting in death. The prosecution’s evidence relied on eyewitness accounts that indicated a sudden attack without prior planning. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found substantial evidence of the attack but not sufficient to confirm the intent requisite for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, a conviction under Section 304-I IPC was deemed appropriate, reflecting the lesser intent. (Paras 11)

Issues: The core issues included whether the actions of the accused constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding intent and premeditation. (Paras 7, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while the attack was violent, the lack of evidence for intent or planning led to a conviction under the lesser charge. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the elements of the crime. (Paras 9, 11)

Result: The appeal was partly allowed, conviction modified to Section 304-I IPC, with a reduced sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top