Orissa High Court
Duryodhan Khosla vs State Of Odisha on 17 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.430 of 2014
Duryodhan Khosla .... Appellant
Mr. S. Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Mr. J. Katikia
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 17.11.2021
10. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2014
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in Criminal Trial
No.15 of 2011 convicting him for the offence under Section 302
IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year, the Appellant has filed the present
appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3rd August, 2010 at around
2.15 pm Meleka Godara (PW 3), the informant of village Debadola
lodged a written report at the Bandhugaon Police Station (PS) to
the effect that on 2nd August 2010 at around 8 pm the Appellant
and a juvenile came to his house, called out the deceased
(Narasingha Meleka) and took him with them. Thereafter the
deceased did not return home.
3. On the following day PW 3 learnt that both the Appellant and
the juvenile had killed the deceased. He reached the spot which
was the front verandah of the house of the co-villager Achana
Meleka (PW 4) and found the body of the deceased with cut
wounds. Thereafter, the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Bandhugaon
P.S. registered P.S. Case No.22 dated 3rd August, 2010. The body
of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem examination.
4. Based on the statement made by the accused while in custody
the weapon of the offence viz., the Ghagada (Katuri) was seized.
The wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased were also
seized. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid
against the accused for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. None was examined
for the accused.
6. The case essentially rested on the eyewitness testimony of PW 4
who stood by his version that he had witnessed the Appellant
inflict cutting injuries on the neck of the deceased with the Gagada
(Katuri) and thereafter fleeing from the spot. Nothing could be
elicited from this eyewitness in his cross examination to discredit
his testimony.
7. The medical officer (PW 7), who conducted the post-mortem of
the deceased, confirmed that the death had occurred due to the
shock and hemorrhage resulting from the homicidal 'chops' on the
back of the neck. Thus, the eyewitness testimony stood fully
corroborated by the medical evidence.
8. The Investigating Officer (IO) (PW 6) also deposed that while in
custody the accused had made a statement on the basis of which the
weapon of offence (the Katuri) was recovered. This recovery was
supported by the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5.
9. Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted
that there was inconsistency as regards the spot where the dead
body of the deceased was found. While PW 3 stated that it was
lying on the village Danda, the version of PW 6 was that it was on
the verandah of the house of PW 4. It was further submitted that
the evidence of PW 6 does not disclose that PW 4, the sole
eyewitness, stated before him that the present Appellant had
assaulted the deceased. It was further submitted that the weapon of
offence had not been sent for chemical examination and in
particular there was no indication that it was stained with human
blood. This, according to Mr. Satapathy, rendered the version of
the prosecution witnesses unreliable and unbelievable.
10. Finally, it was submitted by Mr. Satapathy that the Appellant is
a tribal person aged 30 years with no criminal antecedents. He has
been in custody since 3rd August 2010 and his old mother is living
by herself in distress.
11. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate on the
other hand pointed out that this was a case of direct evidence and
the eye witness testimony remained unshaken. This by itself was
sufficient to sustain the conviction of the Appellant.
12. The above submissions have been considered.
13. The cross-examination of PW 4 reveals that absolutely nothing
was elicited that could even remotely cast any doubt on the truth of
his testimony. He turned out to be a credible and reliable witness.
He was a co-villager and there was no need for him to falsely
implicate the Appellant.
14. Further the eyewitness testimony of PW 4 stands completely
corroborated by the evidence of PW 7, the Medical Officer, who
performed the post-mortem. Again, nothing has been elicited in his
cross-examination to cast any doubt that the death was a homicidal
one, as result of the severe cutting blows on the neck of the
deceased inflicted by the present Appellant.
15. In a case of direct evidence such as the present, the fact that
there may be some inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses
as regards the spot where the dead body was found, is but natural,
not unusual. What is significant, however, is that the dead body
was in fact found on the verandah of the house of PW 4, who
correctly describes the spot. This is fully corroborated by the
evidence of PW 6.
16. The failure to ascertain if the weapon of offence was stained
with blood does not in any manner dilute the credibility of the
testimony of the eyewitness.
17. The Court is unable to find any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as
to costs.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.
