Orissa High Court
Arjun Jayapuria vs State Of Odisha on 24 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.66 of 2007
Arjun Jayapuria .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Advocates, appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. J. Katikia
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
24.09.2022
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. This is an appeal directed against a judgment dated 7th May,
2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur
in Session Trial No.30/18 of 2005 convicting the Appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and to undergo RI in default for one year.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a telephonic information was
received on 27th October, 2004 at a person at village Kusanpuri
JCRLA No. 66 of 2007
was moving with a cut head of a women. The Officer-in-Charge
(OIC) of Sasan Police Station (PS), Mr. Pradip Kumar Sahoo
(PW 13) made entry in the station diary and then proceeded to
village Kusanpuri. When he reached the village at around 12
noon, he received a written report from one Suratha Jayapuria
(PW 4), who happened to be the grand-son of the deceased
Ainthapatri Jayapuria. PW 4 stated that at around 10 am while he
was at his house, his mother Jastobantia Jayapuria (PW 1), who
had gone for a bath with the deceased, rushed back into the house
and disclosed to PW 4 her son that the present Appellant, the
uncle of PW 4 and the youngest son of the deceased had killed the
deceased by means of a katari. Along with PW 4 his father
Dalaganjan Jaypuria (PW 4) was also present.
3. Hearing the above information from PW 1, both PWs 4 and 7
then rushed to the spot i.e. near a tube well and found the
Appellant giving successive blows to the neck of the deceased by
means of a katari and the deceased was lying in a critical
condition.
4. PW 13 reached the spot. He found that the head of the body had
been completely severed and the present Appellant was sitting
near the dead body holding Katari. PW 13 then seized the sample
earth, the blood stained earth, conducted inquest over the dead
body by joining the head with the body. He examined the inquest
witnesses and then sent the body for post-mortem. He seized the
weapon of offence from the Appellant and arrested him. He also
JCRLA No.66 of 2007
seized the wearing apparels of the Appellant. On conclusion of the
investigation, charge sheet was led against the Appellant, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thirteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and non
for the defence. The trial Court on an analysis of the evidence
came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove
the case of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and
proceeded to convict and sentence him in the manner indicated
here-in-before.
6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. B.K. Ragada,
learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. J. Katikia, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent (State).
7. There are three eyewitnesses put forth by the prosecution. PW 1
is a daughter-in-law of the deceased, who accompanied the
deceased to MaltiJorato take bath. He states that on the way to
Jora, she went to the shop of one Prafulla who purchasing shop
power and at that time the deceased was standing near a peepal
tree. When PW 1 returned from the shop she did not find the
deceased near the tree. When she reached near the tube well, she
noticed that Appellant giving successive blows on the neck of the
deceased by means of a katari. Seeing this PW 1 rushed to her
house and informed her husband (PW 7). In cross examination the
witness reiterated that she had seen the accused in giving
successive blows on the neck of the deceased by means of a katari
JCRLA No.66 of 2007
and that she had seen it from a distance of two-three feet. She also
confirmed that on the same she had been examined by the
Investigating Officer (IO). She denied the suggestion that her
husband i.e. PW 7 had committed the murder and that they had
falsely implicated the Appellant.
8. The Court finds the evidence of PW 1 to be natural and
probable. She was a direct eyewitness to the occurrence and her
evidence remained unshaken in cross examination. There was
absolutely no need for her to falsely implicate the present
appellant particularly since there is no enmity between them.
9. Turning now to the evidence of PW 4 who is a grand-son of the
deceased, he is very clear about witnessing the Appellant assault
his grand-mother by means of successive blows to her neck with
akatari.
10. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the Appellant sought to point
out that in her cross examination this witness stated "I have not
been examined by the police during the course of investigation for
at any point of time. For the first time, I have stated regarding the
occurrence in Court today and had not disclosed about the
occurrence anybody else."However, as pointed out by Mr.
Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate, PW 13 in his
deposition confirmed that PW 4 was in fact examined by him on
the date of the incident itself. It is likely that this witness did not
understand what was exactly being asked in the cross-
JCRLA No.66 of 2007
examination. Apart from this, there is nothing in the cross
examination that raises any doubt as to the truthfulness of the
witness.
11. The next witness PW 7 the elder son of the deceased, who
again witnessed along with his son PW 4 the assault on the
deceased by the present Appellant with a Katari. This witness
explained in cross-examinationthe seemingly inconsistent
statement whether the accused and the deceased were staying with
the family of PW 7 as a joint family or, as suggested by PW 1
they were having a joint mess. He explained how the deceased
was staying with her elder son i.e. PW 7 while taking her food
with the present Appellant. In any event, this does not appear to
be such an important aspect of the matter when the essential
aspect the evidence of the three eyewitnesses i.e. PWs 1, 4 and 7
is examined viz, their witnessing the assault of the deceased by
the Appellant. The consistent versions of PWs 1, 4 and 7 have
been corroborated by independent witnesses like PW 2 who
reached the spot after hearing of the assault and found the body of
the deceased lying at the spot with her head completely severed
and the Appellant standing near the dead body. PW 3 was the
witness to the inquest and also states likewise.
12. The medical evidence and the serological evidence also
corroborate the eyewitness testimonies.
JCRLA No.66 of 2007
13. Having examined the evidence afresh with the assistance of
learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned
judgment of the learned trial Court, the Court is satisfied that the
prosecution has been able to prove the case against the Appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. The impugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity which
calls for interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in
the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
(S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
S.K.Jena/Secy.
JCRLA No.66 of 2007
