A single judge bench of the Odisha High Court consisting of Justice Chittaranjan Dash in the case of Mahendra Dora vs State of Odisha dismissed a criminal appeal while reiterating that when direct evidence establishes a crime, the motive is not necessarily a relevant factor and the failure to prove the motive may not necessarily weaken the case of the prosecution.
Facts:
This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (“RI”) for life and a fine. The case of the prosecution is that on account of differences with her husband, the deceased Phulmati Majhi was staying at the house of her mother. The deceased went to collect firewood along with some co-villagers including her two sisters - Pramila Majhi (P.W.3) and Sanja Majhi (P.W.7). At around 11.30 am, P.Ws.3 and 7 came to the village and informed her brother Satrughna Majhi (P.W.1) that the present Appellant, who was the husband of the deceased, dealt blows on her head, neck and back with an axe, and that she was lying at the spot in a pool of blood; the Appellant had fled away leaving the axe at the spot.
On analysing the entire evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The case was based on eye-witnesses’ testimonies of P.W.2 (Lalita Majhi), Pramila Majhi (P.W.3), Daimati Majhi (P.W.6) and Sanja Majhi (P.W.7). The evidence of Gouranga Majhi (P.W.12) to whom the deceased was stated to have made an oral dying declaration was also considered, but not believed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
There were contradictions in the testimonies of P.Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 as regards the number of persons who had gone to the jungle for the collection of firewood with the deceased. While P.W.2 stated that 12 women had gone to the jungle, the prosecution had only examined relatives of the deceased as witnesses and left out the other independent witnesses. On the other hand, the evidence of the Appellant, who examined himself as D.W.1, was clear and cogent and his plea of alibi viz., that he was working in Vedanta Limited, Lanjigarh as a mason at the time and date of occurrence ought to have been accepted. It was further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the absence of any motive for the crime being proved by the prosecution. Finally, it was submitted that if at all the case of homicidal death is accepted then it should be considered to be an act of grave and sudden provocation attracting Section 304 Part II IPC, instead of Section 302.
Contentions of the Respondent:
This is a case based on direct evidence with four eyewitnesses speaking clearly and consistently about the occurrence. The minor contradictions in their testimonies were natural and were not on the material aspects. Moreover, the eyewitnesses’ testimonies were fully corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence in the form of the chemical examination report. In a case of direct evidence, motive is not of much importance and the absence of proof of motive would not weaken the case of the prosecution.
Observations of the Court:
The court supported the respondent’s contention that this is a case based on direct evidence and the 4 eye-witnesses, who have spoken clearly and cogently about the occurrence, are P.Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 7.
Turning to the post-mortem evidence of P.W.10 (Dr Malaya Kumar Tripathy), was clear that the axe which was shown to him could have caused the above wounds. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injuries to the brain and the nature of death was clearly stated to be homicidal. The doctor was also subject to cross-examination. He was clear in ruling out the possibility of chop wounds being possible by “any sharp-edged stone.” In other words, the medical evidence fully corroborated the eye-witness testimonies. The chemical examination report also revealed human blood of ‘O’ group on the tangia.
The court held that where the eyewitnesses’ testimonies are clear and cogent, there is no reason for the trial Court to have not believed and to have based the guilt of the Appellant on such evidence. This is not a case of grave and sudden provocation but of premeditated murder in an unusually cruel manner by means of a deadly weapon on a totally defenceless and unarmed person. Placing reliance on the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 12 SCC 91, the court held that in cases of this type, when direct evidence establishes a crime, the motive is not necessarily a relevant factor and the failure to prove the motive may not necessarily weaken the case of the prosecution.
Decision:
The court upheld the trial court judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
