Ajit Kumar Rajguru vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 9072 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRLA No.142 of 2016

        In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
  and the order of sentence dated 17th November, 2015 passed by
  the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna
  in C.T. Case No.50 of 2013 (SESSIONS)(T).
                                     ----

      Ajit Kumar Rajguru                      ....        Appellant


                                 -versus-

      State of Odisha                         ....       Respondent

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

              For Appellant      -        Mr.Manas Chand
                                          (Advocate)

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

  Date of Hearing : 01.08.2023        :     Date of Judgment:11.08.2023

D.Dash,J.     The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in

question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence

dated 17th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.50 of

2013 (SESSIONS)(T) arising out of CT (GR) Case No.98 of 2013

CRLA No.142 of 2016

corresponding to Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.27 of 2013 of

the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate

(S.D.J.M.), Bhawanipatna.

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.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) in default to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years with the stipulation that

the fine amount, if realized, 50% of the same would be paid to the

children of the deceased, namely, Aman Rajguru and Akankshya

Rajguru towards compensation.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 07.02.2013, one Ashok Kumar Praharaj (informant-

P.W.2) lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge

(I.I.C.) of Bhawanipatna Town P.S stating therein that her sister

Sandhyarani Praharaj (deceased) had married this accused in or

about the year 2003 and for last two months, the accused was

sitting idle without doing anything and was asking his sister to

earn money by working somewhere. Aman Rajguru (P.W.10),

who is the son of the accused and Sandhyarani (deceased),

informed him over telephone that his father (accused) had killed

his mother (deceased). So, Ashok (informant-P.W.2) had gone to

CRLA No.142 of 2016

the house of the accused and found her sister lying dead with

bleeding injuries all over her body, being brutally murdered.

Receiving the above written report from Ashok (Informant-

P.W.2), the I.I.C. treated the same as FIR 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.2) and other witnesses.

Having gone to the spot, he prepared the spot map (Ext.1) and

seized the weapon. He held inquest over the dead body of the

deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the report to

that effect (Ext.1/1). The dead body of the deceased was the sent

by the I.O. (P.W.14) for postmortem examination by issuing

necessary requisition. He also took step for sending the

incriminating articles for chemical examination through Court.

The accused, being arrested, was forwarded in custody to Court.

Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14)

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., Bhawanipatna, on receipt of the Final

Form, took cognizance of said offences and after observing the

formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is

how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid

offence against the accused.

CRLA No.142 of 2016

5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has

examined in total fourteen (14) witnesses. Out of them, the

important is P.W.2, who is the informant and brother of the

deceased. The two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are

P.Ws.9 & 10, who happen to be the daughter and son of the

accused and deceased, respectively. The Doctor, who had

conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of

the deceased, has been examined as P.W.13 whereas the

Investigating Officer (I.O.) is 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 17.

Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.2); inquest report (Ext.1/1);

the spot map (Ext.11) and the post mortem report (Ext.9). The

opinion of the Doctor separately given after examination of the

seized weapon has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.10

whereas the chemical examiner9s report is Ext.16.

6. The plea of the accused is that of complete denial and false

implication. He has examined one witness as D.W.1 in support of

his specific plea that he was absent at home during the relevant

time and he, after having come to know about the homicidal

death of his wife, had gone to the P.S., when he was arrested.

CRLA No.142 of 2016

7. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence on

record, has arrived at the finding that the accused has assaulted

his wife (Sandhyarani) to death by katuri.

8. Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the Appellant

(accused) submitted that the Trial Court ought not to have relied

upon the evidence of P.Ws.2, 9 & 10, who are the daughter and

son of the accused and the deceased respectively. He submitted

that the Trial Court has not properly examined the evidence of

P.Ws.9 & 10 in the touchstone of the circumstances emanating

from the evidence. It was also submitted that as during their

examination in the Trial, they were residing in their maternal

uncle9s place, the evidence, if properly scanned, would reveal that

they had been sufficiently tutored to point the figure of

accusation only at this accused and it is at the instance of their

maternal uncle (Informant-P.W.2).

9. Mr.D.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate

for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of the

Trial Court, took us through the deposition of P.Ws.9 & 10.

According to him, what these two witnesses have stated as to the

complicity of the accused, no such material has been elicited from

their lips to discard their positive evidence. He further submitted

that the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10, being at par with one another in

CRLA No.142 of 2016

so far as the role played by the accused is concerned, the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the accused.

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 (P.Ws.1 to 15) and have perused

the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 17.

11. There is no dispute as to the nature of death of Sandhyarani

as homicidal. This has been deposed to by the Doctor (P.W.13),

who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead

body of the deceased. During post mortem examination, he had

noticed two lacerated wounds on left side of frontal bone of the

scalp and below the left eye. Besides the above, he had also noted

nine cut mark on different parts of the body as also the fracture of

little figure of right hand. It is his evidence that all such injuries

are ante mortem in nature and the death was on account of

intracranial haemorrhage and its complications.

The defence has not even attempted to question the

evidence of the Doctor (P.W.13) in any manner. He has also stated

to have examined the seized weapon (Katuri) and as per his

opinion the injuries, which he had noticed over the dead body of

the deceased, were possible by the said weapon. Other witnesses

have also stated to have seen the deceased with the injuries and

CRLA No.142 of 2016

the I.O. (P.W.14) too has noted all such injuries in his inquest

report (Ext.1/1). The daughter and son of the deceased, who have

been examined as P.Ws.9 & 10 respectively, have also deposed to

have seen their mother lying with injuries on her head and other

parts.

12. Now, coming to the complicity of the accused, we find that

the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10. The

Trial Court has accepted their version to be clear and cogent and

having held those to be trustworthy, has mainly based its finding

thereupon. In view of the above, we would now confine our

examination to the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 10 as we feel that if their

evidence even as to the presence of the accused at home at the

relevant time is not accepted, any amount of other evidence

available on record, would not be enough to conclude that the

accused is the author of the injuries received by the deceased.

13. Admittedly, the occurrence took place inside the house of

the accused where the deceased and P.Ws.9 & 10 were residing. It

has been stated by P.W.9 that the occurrence took place in the

night and it was around 2.00 a.m. She has stated that when she

was sleeping with her mother (deceased) and brother (P.W.10),

she saw the accused moving in the house and then, after hearing

the shout of her mother, she got up and saw the accused

assaulting her mother by Bhujali by dragging the tuft of her hair.

CRLA No.142 of 2016

It has also been stated by her that the accused was assaulting her

mother on her head, face and chest when her brother (P.W.10)

had also got up and immediately, informed their maternal

grandparents and uncle. She has denied to have tutored by

anyone in saying about the incident as to have been seen on that

fateful night. During cross-examination, we find this witness to

have further stated that when she got up, she saw the accused

assaulting her mother (deceased) by that Bhujali. The defence has

not been able to point out any infirmity with the evidence of

P.W.9 either to disbelieve her presence at home at the relevant

time or to have been tutored by someone in so deposing during

Trial.

14. P.W.10 is the son of the accused and the deceased, who too

is the brother of P.W.9. He has stated that when he got up hearing

the shout of his mother (deceased), he found his father (accused)

assaulting his mother on her head, face and chest by means of

Bhujali resulting profuse bleeding. He has also stated that his

mother, receiving the injuries, died at the spot. The natural

reaction of this witness (P.W.10) has been brought out during

cross-examination that he had gone to call the neighbours after

the incident and it has also been stated by this P.W.1 that he had

informed his maternal uncle as regards the happenings in the

said night over telephone which provide strength to his evidence.

CRLA No.142 of 2016

He states that on arrival of his maternal uncle (P.W.2), he had

narrated the incident in detail. It has been further deposed by

P.W.10 that he had been examined by the police, who had arrived

in their house on receiving the information. The ocular testimony

of P.Ws.9 & 10, in our opinion, are wholly trustworthy since no

such element appear in their deposition to doubt their evidence

on the act done by this accused in that night and when their

presence at home in the night is too not questioned

15. In view of the above clear, cogent and acceptable evidence

on record, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly

convicted the accused by holding that the prosecution has proved

the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt.

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

conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th November, 2015

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi,

Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.50 of 2013 (SESSIONS)(T) are

hereby confirmed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

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

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

Signature Not Basu Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Aug-2023 16:49:27

CRLA No.142 of 2016