Salhai Marandi vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 11323 Ori

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRLA No.747 of 2011
An application under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment
dated 25th November, 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No.181 of 2007.
                              ----------

Salhai Marandi                              ......               Appellant
                                 Versus
State of Odisha                             ......           Respondent

Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
       For Appellant             :     Mr. B.K. Behera-1, Advocate
       For Respondent            :     Mr. J. Katikia, Additional
                                       Government Advocate

             CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

                            JUDGMENT

th 5 November, 2021 B.P. Routray,J.

1. The sole Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life

imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj for

commission of murder of his brother Dhana Marandi (the deceased).

2. The Appellant and deceased were two brothers and residing

separately. They had some land disputes. On 7 th May, 2007 the deceased

had been to the house of P.W.3 (Lakhan Marandi), one of their relations

in the same village to attend the 21st day ceremony of his grandson. After

the function is over, Appellant called the deceased to his house for some

discussions. Accordingly the deceased went to the house of the Appellant

and in course of discussion there was hot altercation of words regarding

some previous dispute. All of sudden, the Appellant assaulted the

deceased by 'Katari' (M.O.I) and 'Paniki' (M.O.II) causing several

bleeding injuries on his person. The deceased died instantaneously at the

spot, i.e. in the house of the Appellant. After the assault the dead body of

the deceased was dragged by the Appellant to his Bari (backyard) and

then he left the place and surrendered in the police station.

3. In the meantime, hearing about the occurrence P.W.2, the elder son of

the deceased reached at the spot and finding his father lying dead,

reported the matter to police which was registered as Kuliana P.S. Case

No.34 dated 7th May, 2007. The investigation was taken up by P.W.11

and later on taken over by P.W.12. The weapons of offence were seized,

the dead body was sent for post mortem examination to District

Headquarters Hospital, Baripada and the Appellant was arrested on the

same day. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted

on 6th July, 2007.

4. The plea of the defence is complete denial and false implication.

5. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in order to prove its case and

marked 17 exhibits along with 12 material objects.

6. The medical evidence is clear to suggest the death of deceased as

homicidal as five external injuries were noticed on the dead body. P.W.5,

the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination has stated that he

noticed 5 incised wounds present over the neck, right shoulder, right

elbow joint, right ear and right temporal bone. As per the opinion of

P.W.5 the cause of death of deceased is due to hemorrhage and shock as

a result of those five incised cut wounds. The trachea was completely

cut. The wound over the right ear was up to bone depth so also the

wounds on the right temporal bone. Such features of injuries noticed on

the dead body coupled with other circumstances do not leave any doubt

about the homicidal nature of death of the deceased.

7. It is seen from the record that P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 are the witnesses

who spoke about the occurrence. P.Ws.3 and 6 are the direct eye

witnesses of the assault and they are the independent witnesses.

8. As per the evidence of P.W.3, he saw the Appellant assaulting the

deceased by means of 'Paniki' and 'Katari'. It is his evidence that on that

day around 4.30 pm to 5 pm, the Appellant dealt blows by means of

those weapons on the deceased who was present in his house. He has

given a detailed account of the assaults on the deceased that he saw being

present in his house. The house of this witness is adjacent to the house of

the Appellant as per the spot map (Ext.9). He has clarified that, the house

of the Appellant is situating in an open place and no boundary was there

around it. During cross-examination he has clarified about the horrific

assault of the Appellant on the deceased by deadly weapons and out of

fear he could not dare to go near the Appellant to save the deceased. The

Appellant was in an angry and aggressive mood and as such nobody

dared to go near him during that time. Similar is the evidence of the other

eyewitness - P.W.6. He has stated about the assault made by the

Appellant on the deceased in the same line as narrated by P.W.3. It is

further stated by P.W.6 that, the Appellant after assaulting the deceased

put his leg on the chest of the deceased and blew the 'Paniki' declaring

to kill everyone who would come near him and thus no one had the

courage to save the deceased from assault of the Appellant.

9. P.W.1 though has not witnessed the assault directly, but saw the

Appellant immediately after the assault putting his leg on the chest of the

deceased and ventilating to kill everyone who would go near him.

10. P.Ws.7 and 8 also have deposed in support of prosecution case

corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6.

11. Thus, on a close analysis of evidence of all prosecution witnesses no

flaw or ambiguity is seen against the prosecution version to suggest

anything in favour of the Appellant. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 & 6 to

8 are seen with sufficient corroboration. It is further seen that the F.I.R.

was lodged immediately after the occurrence without any delay and

police has taken prompt actions to collect evidence against the Appellant.

The scientific team was called to verify the spot and they took all

necessary steps. So on close analysis of entire evidences brought on

record, it is found that prosecution has successfully established the

charge against the Appellant as the author of murder of the deceased.

The ocular evidences of the witnesses are so cogent and clinching that

leaves no room of doubt in support of the defense. Accordingly no

ground is seen to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction

and sentence.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

13. The LCRs be returned forthwith.

(B.P.Routray) Judge

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

// M.K.Panda, Sr.Steno //