Advocates:
['M/S S K MISHRA', 'RADHARAMAN DASNAYAK', '', 'D PATI', 'S K MOHANTY', 'D K DAS', 'R DAS MOHAPATRA', 'GOVT ADV']

CRLA No.158 of 2003 Page 1 of 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA No. 158 of 2003

Balku Oram

….

Appellant

-versus-

State of Odisha

….

Respondent

Advocates appeared in the cases:

For Appellant

:

Mr. Radharaman Dasnayak

Advocate

For Respondent

:

Mrs. Saswata Patnaik

Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

JUDGMENT

29.09.2022

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3^rd May,

2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Rourkela in Sessions Trial No.39/246 of 1998 convicting the

present Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302

read with 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment (RI) for life.

2. By the impugned judgment, apart from the present Appellant,

the trial Court also convicted Udai Oram (Accused No.1), who

had also filed the present appeal jointly with the present

CRLA No.158 of 2003 Page 2 of 9

Appellant. However, the Court was informed at the hearing on

11^th August, 2022 that Udai Oram had expired in 2016 itself and,

therefore, the appeal by him was dismissed as having abated

leaving only the present Appellant-Balku Oram in the fray.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17^th February, 1998 at

around 5 pm, the youngest daughter of Manobodha Naik of

village Gundibali Luhakera, Police Station (P.S.) Sector-15,

Rourkela in District Sundergarh died. The family members of

Manobodha Naik claimed that she died on account of witchcraft

practice by the deceased Puni Naik. The further case of the

prosecution is that both the accused came to the house of Puni

Naik, dragged her from her house and took her near the house of

Manobodha Naik and there assaulted her severely by means of a

lathi. This was witnessed by Sukra Naik (P.W.3), the daughter of

Puni Naik. Sukra Naik was only 16 years old at that time. The

case of the prosecution is that the accused also tried to assault

P.W.3 but she managed to escape from the spot. Around 12

midnight or 1 am, the early hours of 18^th February 1998, Puni

Naik died. At 11 am that day, P.W.3 accompanied by her maternal

uncle, Hrudananda Ganda went to the PS and gave the written

complaint, which was registered as an FIR.

4. The investigating Officer (P.W.9) visited the spot, seized the

wearing apparels of the deceased and the blood-stained earth and

sent them for chemical examination. On conclusion of the

CRLA No.158 of 2003 Page 3 of 9

investigation, he laid a charge-sheet against the accused, who

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. On behalf of prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined and none

on behalf of the defence. On analysis of the evidence, the trial

Court concluded that the conviction of both the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC could

safely be based on the eye-witness testimony of P.W.3 and

proceeded to sentencing them in the manner indicated

hereinbefore.

6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Radharaman

Dasnayak, learned counsel for the present Appellant and Mrs.

Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for

the State.

7. The memorandum of appeal in the present case seeks to make

out a case of applicability of Section 304 Part II IPC and not

Section 302 IPC, on the ground that the present Appellants had

acted under a grave and sudden provocation as a result of the

assumption that the deceased was a witch and that the youngest

daughter of Manobodha Naik had expired as a result of witchcraft

practiced by the deceased.

8. The testimony of P.W.3, who no doubt is a related witness, is

clear and cogent. She witne