Orissa High Court
Raina @ Ranjan Juanga vs State Of Odisha on 6 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.356 of 2009
An application under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment
dated 30th June, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in
Sessions Trial Case No.62 of 2008.
----------
Raina @ Ranjan Juanga ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha ...... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
For Appellant : Mr. Chittaranjan Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. J.Katikia, Advocate
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
6 September, 2021
B.P. Routray,J.
1. The Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
for murder simpliciter by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in
Sessions Trial Case No.62 of 2008.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that, the Appellant and the deceased
were two friends and belonged to the same village Talapada. On 24th
September, 2007 around 9 pm they were coming down the village road
quarreling with each other. The quarrel intensified near the house of
deceased and the Appellant assaulted the deceased by fist blows. Hearing
the shout, two elder brothers of deceased (P.W.1 and P.W.2) came out
from their house and separated them. But during the quarrel deceased fell
down on a hard surface and sustained a head injury. Then the Appellant
left the place saying that he would take the deceased to Hospital and did
not turn up. P.Ws.1 and 2 took the deceased into their house. He died
there the next evening around 5 pm. P.W.1 lodged the written report
(Ext.1) on the same night of the death. It was registered as Daitari P.S.
Case No.27 dated 25th September, 2007.
3. P.W.5, the then I.I.C. of Daitari Police Station took up investigation.
On the next morning inquest over the dead body was held and the dead
body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.4, the Medical Officer
working as O&G specialist in the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Anandapur
conducted post mortem examination on 26th September, 2007 at 5 pm.
The accused was arrested on 1st October, 2007 and upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 25th December, 2007
against the Appellant as the sole accused for the commission of the
offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
4. The Appellant faced trial taking the plea of false implication. In course
of trial, prosecution examined 5 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits in order
to prove their case. No material object has been adduced in evidence.
5. On the other hand defence did not adduce any evidence.
6. The learned Sessions judge upon completion of trial convicted the
Appellant for murder of the deceased with the finding that prosecution
had successfully proved the charge against him.
7. At the outset it must be noted that the death has been held to be
homicidal. P.W.4 who conducted post mortem examination found one
lacerated injury over the right frontal area of the head, one abrasion on
the left knee. The abdominal skin around the umbilicus was found to
have turned blue. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in
nature. The external injury on the head was associated with bleeding and
fracture of the frontal bone exposing the brain matter just above the right
orbital margin. It was corresponding to the internal injury of hematoma
in the right hemisphere of the brain of size 2" X 2.5". P.W.4 opined that
the death was due to hemorrhage and shock relating to the head injury.
The time of death was within 24 hours from the time of post mortem
examination. P.W.4 further opined that the death was homicidal in
nature. Thus, considering the features of injuries as opined by P.W.4 and
keeping in view the circumstances alleged by prosecution, it is concluded
that the deceased died a homicidal death. This is in any event not
disputed by counsel for the Appellant.
8. The next question to be examined is whether the Appellant can be said
to have caused the homicidal death? P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses
to the occurrence. A perusal of their evidence reveals that they both have
stated to have seen the Appellant and the deceased quarreling with each
other near their house. Neither of the witnesses have said anything about
the use of any weapon in the commission of the offence. Their evidence
is to the effect that the Appellant dealt fist blows to the deceased during
quarrel and the latter fell down and sustained an injury on the head.
Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is clear that the cause of the
injury on the head of the deceased was due to his fall on the hard surface.
P.W.5 has admitted in his cross-examination that the spot of occurrence
was stony with hard surface. This is also not disputed by P.W.1.
Therefore, the reason for the head injury which resulted in the death of
the deceased is due to fall of the deceased during quarrel with the
Appellant. None of the witnesses including P.Ws.1 and 2 have whispered
about any intention of the Appellant either for the quarrel or for the
blows dealt by him. There is no other proven circumstance that points to
the intention of the Appellant. Also, there does not appear to be any prior
enmity between the Appellant and the deceased. Even the case of the
prosecution is that they both were friends prior to the occurrence.
9. Upon a close scrutiny of the circumstances and the entire evidence
adduced on record, the Court is unable to discern the intention behind the
homicidal killing of the deceased. At the same time, it cannot be held
that the Appellant did not have the knowledge that the fall on the hard
surface is likely to cause an injury. The circumstances and the actions
attributable to the Appellant suggest a clear case of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder falling within the ambit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 of the I.P.C. The occurrence took place in the course of
quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. The fist blows dealt by
the Appellant in course of quarrel and which caused the deceased to fall
on the hard surface was without premeditation and without any undue
advantage taken by the Appellant. The quarrel appears to be a sudden
one and nothing is there on record to show any cruel or unusual action on
the part of the Appellant. Thus, in our considered opinion the culpable
action of the Appellant was without any intention to cause death, which
attracts the punishment under Section 304, Part-II of the I.P.C. and not
under Section 302. We conclude as such. The conviction of the
Appellant by the trial court in the impugned judgment is set aside and
modified to this extent.
10. As submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant and as also
revealed from record, the Appellant has been in custody since 1st
October, 2007. In other words, he has already undergone almost 14 years
of imprisonment. In view of the above discussion, the sentence is
modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the
Appellant. Accordingly, we direct for his immediate release. The
Appellant be set at liberty immediately if his detention is not required in
any other case.
11. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The LCR be returned
forthwith. An urgent certified copy of this order be transmitted forthwith
to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
(B.P.Routray)
Judge
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
6th of September, 2021.
//M.K. Panda, Sr. Steno//
