Orissa High Court
Dhaneswar Naik vs State Of Odisha on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.517 of 2015
Dhaneswar Naik .... Appellant
Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Mr. J. Katikia, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
01.11.2021
Order No.
01. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12th
September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.46/96 of 2013 convicting the
Appellant under Sections 302/324 I.P.C. For the offence under
Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- only
and in default to undergo RI for one year. For the offence under
Section 324 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo RI for one
month.
2. Counsel for the Appellant informs the Court that the Appellant
had been completed more than 9 years in custody as of date.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11th April, 2012 at
around 7 P.M., Dhaneswar Naik, the present Appellant, who is a
nephew of Kusha Naik (PW 7) took the bicycle of PW 7 and went
to the nearby weekly market without informing PW 7.
4. When PW 7 went to the market in a vehicle, he found the
Appellant with his bicycle. PW 7 questioned the Appellant for
bringing the bicycle without informing him. Two hours after PW
7 returned home, the Appellant returned with the bicycle. Again
PW 7 questioned the Appellant for taking his bicycle without his
permission. At this, the Appellant is stated to have become
enraged. The Appellant then went to his house, brought a Bhujali
and Bhala and dealt blows on the face, head and right shoulder of
PW 7 which caused profuse bleeding injuries.
5. At this stage, Chakhandi Naik (the deceased), who happened to
be the mother of PW 7, came there and protested. Upon this the
Appellant dealt blows with the aforementioned weapons on the
face of the deceased. Both the deceased and her son (PW 7) were
shifted to Harichandanpur Hospital for treatment. The mother was
declared dead on arrival. PW 7, however, received treatment and
survived.
6. Charges were laid against the Appellant under Sections 302
and 307 I.P.C. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and
exhibited 16 documents.
7. This was a case of direct evidence and the star witness for the
prosecution was PW 7, the injured eye witness. It must be noticed
here that as far as PW 7 is concerned, the injuries noticed on him
were as follows:
"(i) Incised would of size 8 cm x 2cm x 2cm over
right shoulder. The injury was simple in nature
and might have been caused by sharp cutting
weapon.
(ii) Incised would of size 7cm x 2cm x 2cm over
left temporal region which was simple in nature
and might have been caused by sharp cutting
weapon."
8. The Court has been taken through the deposition of PW 7, who
stood firm in his cross-examination. nothing could be elicited
from him to discredit his testimony. Further, his description of the
injuries caused to the deceased by the Appellant matched the
medical evidence of Dr. Niranjan Behera (P.W.9), who conducted
the post-mortem examination. The following injuries on the body
of the deceased stood proved.
"(i) One sharp deep cut injury over left maxillary
region extending from upper margin of pinna to
left nostril and cutting maxillary bone into two
pieces of size 3" x 1" x 1-1/2'.
(ii) Sharp cut injury of size 1-1/2 x ½" over brige
of nose extending from globulla to the tip of
nostril extending upto the nasal cavity.
(iii) Lacerated injury of size 2" x 1" over left
occipital scalp.
(iv) Lacerated injury of size 1" x ½" over right
anticubital portion.
(v) Sharp cut injury of size 2" x ½" x ½" over
right upper arm 4" below tip of right shoulder
joint.
(vi) Lacerated injury of size 1-1/2" x ½" over
right forearm, 1" below right wrist joint."
9. Consequently there was a complete corroboration of the eye-
witness testimony by the medical evidence raising no manner of
doubt that the Appellant who cause the fatal injuries on the
deceased. Further PW 10 has also corroborated the evidence of
PW 7.
10. Faced with the above evidence, it was argued both before the
trial court as well as in this Court by the counsel for the defence
that this was a case of grave and sudden provocation and an
attempt was made to bring the offence under Section 304 Part-II,
I.P.C. viz., culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the view that the learned trial court was right in rejecting the
above plea. Here not only was the Appellant found to have gone
back to his own house and to have brought with him not just one
weapon, but two and started dealing blows on the shoulder and
head of PW 7, but did not stop when the deceased intervened to
save her son. The large number of indiscriminate injuries on the
body of the deceased, who was totally defenceless, shows that the
Appellant clearly intended to kill her.
12. In the circumstances, the Court is unable the countenance the
plea that this was a case of grave and sudden provocation without
any intention to cause the death of the deceased. There is no merit
in the present appeal and is dismissed as such.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
