Orissa High Court
Rai @ Raya Singh vs State Of Odisha on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017.
----
Rai @ Raya Singh .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.Malaya Kumar Swain
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.S.K. Nayak,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Date of Hearing : 21.07.2023 : Date of Judgment:11.08.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the
jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017 arising out of
C.T. No.227 of 2017 corresponding to Oupada P.S. Case No.31 of
2017 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Nilgiri.
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 2 }}
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for
committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 8the IPC9). Accordingly, he has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six (6) months.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 15.06.2017 during the noon hours, one Laxmikanta
Nayak (P.W.5) presented a written report with the Officer-in-
Charge (OIC) of Oupada Police Stating therein that on the
previous afternoon, he with his father Rabindra Nayak
(deceased) and one Uday Das (P.W.2) had been to the house of
Rangabati Ghadei of Village-Paidajhara for collecting the hire
charges towards use of their Tractor. When Rabindra (deceased)
asked Rangabati to pay the hire charges, a quarrel took place
between them. It is stated that at that time, the accused being
present there, was consuming Handia (a local intoxicant drink). It
is stated that the accused immediately came out of the house and
told the deceased <SALA RAHA TOTE DEKHUCHHI=. By saying
so, he went inside the house and then shot an arrow from the
bow from his house aiming at the chest of the deceased. The
deceased, sustaining the said arrow shot injury, fell on the
ground and started groaning in pain. The accused then attempted
to pull out the arrow from the chest of the deceased, but failed in
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 3 }}
the process, the arrow got broken. The accused fled away from
the spot. Laxmikanta (P.W.5) with Uday (P.W.2) brought the
deceased in a motorcycle to their house and shifted him to Soro
hospital in a Bolero vehicle where the Doctor declared him as
dead.
The written report to the above effect being scribed by one
Ananta Kumar Das (P.W.1) when was received by the Inspector-
in-Charge (I.I.C.-P.W.14), he treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and
registering the case, took up investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-
P.W.14) examined the informant (P.W.5) and other witnesses. He
held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared
the report to that effect (Ext.2). The dead body of Rabindra was
then sent for post mortem examination and after that, the
wearing apparels of the deceased were seized under the seizure
list. The broken piece of arrow and the bow were seized pursuant
to the statement of the accused while in police custody. The
seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination
through Court. On completion of the investigation, the I.O.
submitted the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for
commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
4. Learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri, on receipt of above Final Form,
took cognizance of the said offence and after observing all the
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 4 }}
formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is
how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid
offences against this accused.
5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has
examined in total fourteen (14) witnesses. As already stated, the
informant, who is the son of the deceased has been examined as
P.W.5 and the scribe of the FIR lodged by P.W.5 has come to the
witness box as P.W.1. The prosecution has examined P.W.2 as the
eye witness to the occurrence and he is said to have accompanied
the deceased and P.W.5 to the house of Rangabati. P.Ws.3 & 4 are
the witnesses to the inquest whereas P.Ws.7 & 8 are the witnesses
to the statement said to have been given by the accused while in
police custody pursuant to which it is said that the broken arrow
and bow were recovered and seized. The wife and another son of
the deceased have come to the witness box as P.Ws.9 & 10
respectively. The Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over
the dead body of the deceased is P.W.13 whereas the
Investigation Officer has been examined as P.W.14.
Besides leading the evidence by examining the above
witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents,
which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 11.
Since detail list to that effect finds appended to the judgment of
the Trial court, those are not further described here to avoid
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 5 }}
repetition, but those would stand referred to as and when
required in course of discussion to follow.
6. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial and false
implication. However, being called upon, the accused had not led
any evidence in support of said plea.
7. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence of the
Doctor (P.W.13), who had conducted the post mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased and his report
(Ext.7) as well as the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14), who had held
inquest over the dead body of the deceased and his report to that
effect (Ext.2) as also the evidence of other witnesses mainly,
P.Ws.2 & 5, has come to a conclusion that the death of Rabindra
was homicidal. In fact this aspect of the case was not under
challenge before the Trial Court and that has been the position
before us. Keeping that in mind, having gone through the
deposition of the Doctor (P.W.13) and his report (Ext.7) as also
the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14) and his report (Ext.2) as well as
the evidence of other witness, who had seen the deceased with
arrow shot injury, we find absolutely no reason to record our
disapproval to the finding of the Trial Court as regards the nature
of death of Rabindra to be homicidal.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused), from the very
beginning, instead of attacking the finding as to the authorship of
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 6 }}
the injury upon the deceased attributed to the accused as has
been recorded by the Trial Court, confined the submission that
viewing the happenings in the incident as also the subsequent
events, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused
for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC. He,
therefore, urged for alteration of the conviction for commission of
offence under section 302 of the IPC to offence under section 304-I
of the IPC and accordingly, he contended that the accused be
visited with the sentence as would be appropriate for the said
offence.
9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted all in
favour of the finding returned by the Trial Court that the accused
is liable for commission of the offence under section 302 of the
I.P.C. He further submitted that with the proven facts and
circumstances emerging from evidence, the Trial Court did
commit no mistake in holding the accused guilty for commission
of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
10. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully
gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have
also travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined
from the side of the prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 14 and have perused
the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 21.
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 7 }}
11. It cannot be laid down as an universal rule that when one
arrow shot or knife injury is inflicted, for the said act, attraction of
the offence under section 302 of the IPC shall stand automatically
ruled out. It would, however, depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The mere fact that only blow was
given, or arrow shot made, though fatal by itself, cannot
automatically take the case out of the purview of the provisions
of Section 300 IPC, if the requisite ingredients of that section are
proved. In order to bring in Clause-3 and section 300, prosecution
must prove the following facts:-
89(a) it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily
injury is present;
(b) the nature of injury must be proved. These are
purely objective assessments;
(c) it must be proved that there was an intention to
inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it
was not accidental or unintentional.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the
enquiry proceeds further; and
(d) it must be proved that the injury of the type
described made up of the three elements set out above
is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective."
12. In the instant case, it has been stated by P.W.2 that when
the deceased asked Rangabati to pay him the hire charges, he was
scolded by Rangabati and the accused person was then present in
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 8 }}
that area. It is further stated that the accused saying that the
deceased is harassing Rangabati, went to his house and brought
the bow and arrow and shot at the deceased which hit on the left
side of the chest of the deceased causing bleeding injury. The
evidence is lacking on the score that shot was aimed at the chest.
The incident appears to have happened all of a sudden and P.W.5
has stated that when his father (deceased) insisted for payment,
accused, who was standing nearby, went to his house, brought
bow and arrow and shot the arrow, which hit at the chest of the
deceased. He has further stated that the accused thereafter took
the step to pull out the arrow and in the process, the arrow was
broken. This shows that the accused, having the repentance,
wanted to save the situation and life of the deceased. He has
further stated that the accused had remained there for a period of
fifteen minutes observing the talks when there was also no prior
enmity between the accused and the deceased. Although it is
their evidence that the accused was not taking the Handia (a local
intoxicant) at the relevant time, the prosecution case, as laid in the
FIR (Ext.1) is to the effect that the accused, being present nearby,
was consuming Handi (a local intoxicant drink), which is given
good-bye to during the Trial.
13. Taking a cumulative view of all these above circumstances
appearing in the evidence, as discussed; we are of the view that
the offence under section 302 of the IPC could be properly
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
{{ 9 }}
categorized as one punishable under section 304-I of the IPC. We
are thus of the considered opinion that for the role played by the
accused and the act done, he would be liable for conviction under
section 304-I of the IPC.
14. In the result the Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of
2017 for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC is
altered to one under section 304-I of the IPC. Consequently, the
Appellant (accused) is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years.
15. With the modification as to the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2017 to the
extent, as indicated above, the Appeal stands disposed of.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi),
Judge.
Basu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 17-Aug-2023 16:49:27
JCRLA No.50 of 2022
