Raju Singh vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 10150 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                        CRLA No.580 of 2023

      In the matter of an Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.113 of 2021.
                               ----

    Raju Singh                              ....    Appellant


                               -versus-
    State of Odisha
                                            ....    Respondent
           Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                    (Virtual/Physical Mode):

            For Appellant-     Mr. Lalitendu Bhuyan,
                               (Advocate)

         For Respondent- Mr. S.K.Nayak,
                         Additional Government Advocate
      CORAM:
      MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
      DR. JUSTICE S.K.PANIGRAHI

Date of Hearing :21.08.2023       :       Date of Judgment: 28.08.2023

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the

judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.01.2023

passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T.

Case No.113 of 2021, arising out of C.T Case No.716 of 2020,

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 2 }}

corresponding to Baisinga P.S. Case No.291 of 2020 of the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Betnoti.

The Appellant (accused) and his brother namely, Laba, having

faced the trial for committing the murder of one Ramesh Singh in

intentionally causing his death; they have been convicted for

commission of offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life

and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months.

Prosecution case:-

2. On 07.12.2020 around 9.30 pm, one Sanjukta Singh (Informant-

P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ext.1) with the Inspector-in-Charge

of Baisinga Police Station stating therein that on the eve of

Prathamastami, her father namely, Ramesh Singh had come to her house

to deliver the new dress for her daughter. Ramesh, having delivered the

dress at her house, went to her elder daughter's house, situated nearby,

and it was around 3 p.m. After sometime, on hearing the cry, Sanjukta

(Informant- P.W.1) and her husband (P.W.2) rushed towards the house

of the elder sister of Sanjukta. They on arrival, saw that this accused,

who is the brother-in-law of Sanjukta (Sanjukta's sister's husband) and

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 3 }}

his other brothers namely, Raju, Laba, their parents, uncle and two sons

of Laba had put her father down on the floor and then, this accused,

Raju was cutting the neck of her father by means of a sickle when his

father, Gana had pressed the head of her father with force and others had

pressed his legs. It is further started that when Sanjukta (Informant-

P.W.1) raised hullah, Laba pushed her and Atul gave kick to her

husband and ran away. They brought Ramesh from that house in a

bleeding condition with an intention to shift him to Hospital. They then

saw the hands of Ramesh to have been tied with face too rounded with a

napkin when the napkin was released from the face of Ramesh, he was

found to be dead by then.

Receiving the above report from the Informant (P.W.1), the IIC

treated the same as FIR and registering the case, directed one Sub-

Inspector (SI) of Police (P.W.16) to take up investigation.

The I.O (P.W.16) in course of investigation examined the

Informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. He then visited the spot and

there also he examined few other witnesses. At the spot, conducting

inquest over the dead body, he prepared the report (Ext.2). This accused

as well as Laba, being arrested by the I.O (P.W.16), it is said that this

accused giving his statement had led the I.O (P.W.16) and others to the

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 4 }}

place in giving recovery of the sickle. The incriminating articles

including the wearing apparels of the deceased and those of this accused

and the other namely, Laba, being seized in course of investigation had

been sent for chemical examination through Court.

3. On completion of investigation, the I.O (P.W.16) submitted the

Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of

offence under section 302/34 of the IPC.

4. Learned JMFC, Betnoti, receiving the Final Form as above, took

cognizance of the offences and after observing the formalities

committed the case to the Court of the Special Judge. That is how the

Trial commenced by framing charge for the said offence against the

accused.

5. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined sixteen (16)

witnesses. As already stated, P.W.1, who is the daughter of the deceased

is the Informant and had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) whereas P.W.2 is the

husband of P.W.1. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5. P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.11 are

the co-villagers and post occurrence witnesses. P.W.13 is the witnesses

to the recovery of the sickle, pursuant to the statement of the accused,

recorded vide Ext.8. The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 5 }}

dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.14 and the I.O is

P.W.16.

6. Besides leading the evidence by examining above the witnesses,

the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been

admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.19. Out of those, the

important are the FIR, Ext.1, inquest report, Ext.2, statement of the

accused leading the I.O (P.W.16) and others in giving recovery of the

sickle is Ext.8 where as the Post Mortem Report is Ext.14 and Ext.17 is

the spot map. The chemical examiner's report has been admitted in

evidence and marked Ext.18.

7. The accused being called upon, has not tendered any evidence in

support of his plea of denial and false implication.

8. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of the Doctor

(P.W.14), who had conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead

body of the deceased and his report (Ext.11) as well as the evidence of

other witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 receiving support from the

evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and others has held this accused to be the

author of the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased. It has concluded

that this accused with his brother, Laba have intentionally caused the

death of Ramesh.

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 6 }}

9. The Doctor, who had conducted Post Mortem over the dead body

of the deceased has been examined as P.W.14. He has stated to have

noted one cut injury on front of neck at upper border of thyroid cartilage

of size 14 cm long x 2 cm wide cutting whole of the trachea with

irregular at places and clean cut at places. He too had noted several

abrasions and one incised wound and one lacerated wound on different

parts of the body of Ramesh. It is his evidence that the injuries are all

ante mortem in nature and the death has taken place on account of cut

injuries on the neck. We find even no attempt to impeach the evidence

of this Doctor (P.W.14). He has also stated that the cut injury noticed on

the neck of the deceased was possible by the sickle which he had

examined on the request by the I.O (P.W.16). With the above evidence

on record, we also find the evidence of the I.O (P.W.16), who had held

inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He had noticed the injuries

on the person of the deceased including the fatal on the neck and has

reflected all those in his report (Ext.2). Other witnesses including P.W.1

and P.W.2, who are the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased have

stated to have seen the deceased lying dead with cut injury on his neck

and other injuries on other parts of the body. Above overwhelming

evidence on record holding firm, lead us to conclude that the death of

Ramesh was homicidal in nature.

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 7 }}

10. Mr.Lalitendu Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused)

submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 ought not to have been

accepted by the Trial Court in fastening the guilt upon the accused in

intentionally causing the death of Ramesh. He submitted that the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 greatly differ on material particulars as to

the incident and the happenings therein. He submitted that on close

scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, conclusion would clearly

emerge that none of them had seen the accused cutting the throat of the

deceased as also the role of other accused persons and therefore,

according to him, these P.W.1 and P.W.2 have unnecessarily implicated

this accused and others in view of their previous enmity.

11. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the

Respondent-State while supporting the finding of the guilt against the

accused and the other namely Laba as has been returned by the Trial

Court contended that there surfaces absolutely no infirmity in the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they also do not differently state on

the happenings in the incident so as to be completely disbelieved.

According to him, P.W.1 and P.W.2 being natural witnesses and their

evidence when stand without any blemish, the Trial Court is right in

convicting this accused and the other namely Laba for commission of

offence under section 302 of the IPC.

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 8 }}

12. At this stage, it is worthwhile to mention that on our query, as per

the information received from the Registry, till date, no appeal has been

filed by the other convict namely, Laba Singh, who is the brother of this

present accused (Appellant).

13. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read

the judgment of conviction impugned in this Appeal. We have also gone

through the depositions of all the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.16. We have

also perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and

marked Ext.1 to Ext.19.

14. Admittedly, this accused is the son-in-law of the deceased

Ramesh and whose other son-in-law is P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1.

The other convict, who has not yet filed the Appeal is none other than

the brother of this accused Raju. The wife of this accused is Sabita, who

is the elder daughter of Ramesh.

As deposed by P.W.1, the occurrence took place on 07.12.2020

on the Prathamastami day in the house of this accused when it was

around 3 p.m. She has stated that respecting the custom that the dresses

for the elder grand children were being provided by the maternal

grandparents/maternal uncle, deceased Ramesh had come to them to

give the dress for her elder daughter and the elder son of this accused

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 9 }}

whose wife was staying with deceased Ramesh. P.W.1 has further stated

that her father Ramesh having delivered the set of dress for her elder

daughter, went to the house of the accused and after sometime, she

heard the cry of her father when she with her husband (P.W.2) rushed to

the house of the accused and saw this accused and other namely Laba to

have caught hold up her father and laid her on the floor and then this

accused was found to be cutting the throat of her father Ramesh by

means of a sickle when the mouth of her father Ramesh was tied by

Gamuchha (napkin) and so also his both hands by a plastic rope. Her

immediate reaction she has expressed by immediately raising the hullah,

hearing which the villagers rushed to the house of the accused and

seeing them, it is stated that the accused persons fled away.

The written report lodged by P.W.1 which had been admitted in

evidence and marked Ext.1 also contain the main happenings in the said

incident, more particularly, the role played and act committed by this

accused and the other. Having said as above, this P.W.1 has further gone

to say that by the time, she entered into the house of the accused, the

throat of her father had already been cut. This P.W.1 having stated that

by the time she arrived, the cutting of the throat of her father was over,

even when we disbelieve her evidence as to have seen this accused; yet

her (P.W.1) evidence about the presence of this accused at the very

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 10 }}

place holding a sickle and the presence of the other one without any

weapon has not been shaken in any manner so as to doubt their presence

or consequentially the version of P.W.1.

The husband of P.W.1 i.e. P.W.2 has stated that few minutes after

his father-in-law went to the house of this accused, he heard hue and cry

and thereafter when her wife (P.W.1) rushed to the house of the accused

and found the mouth of Ramesh being tied by a Gamuchha (napkin) and

his hands with plastic rope. He has further stated then they saw that this

accused and the other one namely, Laba had caught hold of Ramesh and

laid him on the floor when this accused namely Raju cut the neck of

Ramesh. It is his evidence that seeing this when P.W.1 raised hullah, the

villagers rushed to the house of the accused and then this accused and

the other namely Laba managed to escape. The cross-examination has

not at all been directed to demolish his positive version as to the role

played and act done by this accused. Similarly, there is no cross-

examination in the direction of bringing out any variance on material

facts so as to raise any doubt about their presence as they state, having

the occasion to see all what they state.

The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 receive corroboration from the

evidence of P.W.3 on the score that when he rushed the house of the

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 11 }}

accused hearing the hullah, he saw Ramesh lying dead with cut injury

on his neck. The daughter of Ramesh has stated to have seen the dead

body of her father, in front of the house of the accused with cut injury on

his neck and the face and the legs being tied by a napkin and plastic rope

respectively. That has also been stated by P.W.5 and P.W.6.

The evidence of Doctor (P.W.14) then too provides sufficient

corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 when he has deposed

to have noticed the cut injuries on the throat of the deceased in further

saying that said cut injuries are possible by means of the sickle which

P.W.1 and P.W.2 said to have been used by this accused in causing the

injuries. We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the clear version of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 standing corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3,

P.W.4 and P.W.5 as well as P.W.14 (doctor).

In addition to the above, it has been stated by the I.O (P.W.16)

that the accused having given his statement which he recorded under

Ext.8 in presence of P.W.11; had taken them to their house in giving

recovery of that sickle which was brought from near the stored gunny

bags. This version of P.W.15 is receiving the support from the evidence

of P.W.11. He has stated the accused to have given the statement before

the I.O (P.W.16) that he would take him and others to the place where

CRLA No. 580 of 2023 {{ 12 }}

he had kept that sickle and so saying, he had taken them and given

recovery of the sickle whose user in causing the injuries as to noticed

upon the dead body of the deceased has been established.

15. In view of the discussion of the evidence as above, we thus find

that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been

impugned in this Appeal are not liable to be interfered with.

16. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned

1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.113 of 2021 are

hereby confirmed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Dr.S.K.Panigrahi, J. I agree.

(Dr.S.K.Panigrahi), Judge.

Gitanjali

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 29-Aug-2023 17:25:25

CRLA No. 580 of 2023