Orissa High Court
Mahulia Naik vs State Of Odisha on 4 December, 2023
Bench: D.Dash, G.Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.44 of 2019
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 12TH April, 2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in C.T. (SS) Case
No.168 of 2014 (C.No.127 of 2016).
----
Mahulia Naik .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Ms.B. Tripathy
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.G.N.Rout,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing : 20.11.2023 : Date of Judgment :04.12.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has
called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 12TH April, 2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in C.T. (SS) Case No.168 of 2014
(C.No.127 of 2016) arising out of G.R. Case No.246 of 2014
corresponding to Rasol P.S. Case No.81 of 2014 of the Court of the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Hindol.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for
committing the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 21.08.2014 around 9.00 a.m, Santosini Naik (P.W.2), who
is the daughter of the present accused (Mahulia Naik), got an
information that on the previous night, there was quarrel
between her mother (Janha Naik) and father (accused) and
during then her father (accused) killed her mother. Coming to
learn about the said incident, Santosini (P.W.2) immediately went
to her parents house and found her mother-Janha lying dead with
cut injuries on her neck. The accused had left the house. She
(P.W.2) immediately presented a report written by her son
(Dusmanta-P.W.1) with the Officer-in-Charge (O.I.C.) of Rasol
Police Station. The O.I.C., Rasol P.S. treated the same as FIR (Ext.1
and on registering the case, took up the investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-
P.W.16) examined the Informant (P.W.2) and the scribe of FIR
(P.W.1). Having visited the spot, the I.O. (P.W.16) prepared the
spot map (Ext.12). The I.O. (P.W.16) held inquest over the dead
body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.2). He then
sent the dead body for post mortem examination by issuing
necessary requisition. The blood stained lungi of the accused was
seized under seizure list (Ext.3). The accused, while in police
custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon and
stated that when taken to the place, he would give recovery of the
same. Pursuant to the statement (Ext.4), the accused is said to
have led the police and other witnesses in giving recovery of the
weapon, which was seized by the I.O. (P.W.16) under seizure list
(Ext.5). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical
examination through Court. The I.O. (P.W.16), being transferred,
she handed over the charge of the investigation to P.W.17, who,
on completion of the investigation, 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., Hindol, on receipt of the Final Form, took
cognizance of said offence 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.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in
total seventeen (17) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the
informant, who happens to be daughter of accused and the
deceased, is P.W.2 whereas P.W.1 is her son. P.Ws.3 & 7 are the
witnesses to the inquest. P.Ws.5 & 9 are the co-villagers of the
accused. P.W.5 is a witness to the seizure of the blood stained
lungi of the accused. P.W.10 is a neighbour of the accused before
whom the accused made the statement as to concealment of the
weapon. P.W.13 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and
accused whereas P.W.15 is the Doctor, who had conducted the
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.16 is the first
I.O. and the I.O., who submitted the Final Form, has been
examined as P.W.17.
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 14.
Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.5); inquest report (Ext.2);
spot map (Ext.12); and the post mortem report (Ext.7). The
reports of the Chemical Examiner has been admitted in evidence
and marked Ext.14.
6. The accused, having taken the plea of complete denial and
false implication, has examined himself as D.W.1.
7. Ms. B.Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused)
submitted that prosecution has not tendered any such direct
evidence to connect the accused with the crime, i.e., the murder of
his wife Janha. She submitted that the prosecution, in order to
bring home the charge against the accused, has relied upon
certain circumstances, such as some witnesses stating about the
quarrel between the accused and deceased and the absence of the
accused in the house and they having detected the dead body of
the deceased in the house. According to him, these circumstance,
being viewed with admitted relationship between the husband
and wife are not enough to fasten the guilt upon the accused in
holding that it is none other than he, who had intentionally
caused the death of the deceased. In view of all these above, she
urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
which are impugned in this Appeal, are liable to be set aside.
8. Mr.G.N.Rout, , learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
Respondent-State, supporting the finding of guilt against the
accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, has invited our
attention to the evidence of P.W.2 (Informant), who is the married
daughter of the accused and the deceased and has lodged the FIR
(Ext.1); P.W.5, a co-villager and so also a close door neighbour of
the accused and deceased (P.W.7); P.W.9 and more importantly
(P.W.10), who is another neighbour of the accused and deceased
and P.W.13, the daughter-in-law of the accused and deceased;
submitted that it being there in the evidence that the accused and
the deceased, as husband and wife, were there in the house in the
night and there was a quarrel between them and in view of that
evidence, when in the morning, the dead body of the wife of the
accused was detected in the house with cut injury on her neck
and accused had fled away from the house by then and is not
coming forward with any such explanation except stating in an
evasive manner stating to be not present in the house and has no
knowledge about such occurrence, the Trial Court has rightly
held the accused to have committed the murder of his wife
attributing the authorship of the fatal neck injury noticed by the
Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the
dead body of the deceased to the accused.
9. 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 17) and have perused
the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 14.
10. There is no quarrel that in the trial, no such witness has
been examined to have seen as to how the deceased received the
injury on her neck. The deceased is none other than the wife of
the accused.
The Doctor (P.W.15), who had conducted the post mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased has found one
deep sited cutting wound over left side of the neck extending
from left mastoid process to lateral side extending towards
cricoids cartilage, interior and the size of the injury was 6" X 2" X
4" with underline great vessel injury. The death, according to him
(P.W.15) was due to shock and heavy bleeding on account of
cutting of great vessel of the left side neck of the deceased. He has
stated that the injuries were possible by the weapon such as
vegetable cutter (Paniki), which had been seized and examined
by him and his evidence is also to the effect that said neck injury
on the deceased, which he had found was sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause the death.
It has been the evidence of the daughter of the accused and
the deceased that frequent quarrel was taking place between the
accused and the deceased as the deceased was suspecting the
character of the accused for his relationship with another lady of
their village. She has cited one instance about such quarrel
between her father (accused) and mother (deceased) for the illicit
relationship with another widow lady of their village. As per her
evidence, the house in question consists of three rooms with a
verandah and when she arrived at home getting the information
about her mother, she found the dead body of her mother lying
on the verandah.
P.W.4, who is a co-villager of the accused and deceased, has
also stated to have seen the dead body of the deceased lying on
the verandah of the house with the face upward with blood
oozed from the nose and injury on the left side of the neck. It has
also been stated by P.W.5 that he used to get information that
since the deceased was suspecting the accused to have extra
marital relationship with another woman, quarrel was taking
place.
It has also been the evidence of P.W.7, who is a close door
neighbour of the deceased that he had seen the deceased lying
dead on their verandah with cut mark on the neck. His further
evidence is that the accused and the deceased were quarrelling
with each other as the deceased was suspecting the accused to
have kept extra marital relationship with another woman. He
further states that on the request of the deceased, a meeting had
been convened in the village where the dispute between the
deceased and the accused had been settled. His positive evidence,
however, is that the accused and the deceased had a quarrel in
the night of occurrence and children of the accused were not
residing in his house as their daughters had married and the son
was working outside. This witness, having been cross-examined,
we find that his evidence, with regard to the frequent quarrel
between the accused and the deceased and also the quarrel
between them in the previous night and that except the accused
and the deceased, none-else were then in the house have not been
shaken. The evidence of this witness (P.W.7) receives
corroboration on the above such facets from the evidence of other
witnesses as already discussed.
It has further been stated by P.W.9 that the accused and his
wife were staying together in the house as their son was working
at Chennai and staying there and daughter-in-law was residing in
her parental house. The house of this witness (P.W.9) and the
accused are situated side by side being intervened by another
house. He has also stated to have seen the accused quarreling
with his wife in the evening hour of that night. The accused was
not found in the house when all these witnesses arrived. P.W.9
has further stated that the reasons for the frequent quarrel
between the accused and the deceased was that the deceased was
suspecting the accused to be having extra marital relationship
with another lady.
It has also been stated by P.W.10 that the accused and the
deceased were quarreling in the night and then they were in the
house and on the next day, the dead body of Janha was found in
the house of the accused with cut injury on the upper portion of
her neck.
The daughter-in-law of the accused and the deceased is
P.W.13, who has stated that there was frequent quarrel between
the accused and the deceased for the extra marital relationship
- 10 -
that the accused was having with another lady which the
deceased was opposing. She has also cited an instance that five
months prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the
accused, deceased and the husband of P.W.13. Centering upon
the relationship of the accused with that lady and there the
accused had been bitten by the deceased and Chitrasen, the
husband of this witness and son of the accused and deceased. She
has also stated about the holding of the meeting on two occasions
in relation to the dispute between the accused and the deceased
giving rise to frequent quarrel concerning that illicit relationship
of the accused with another widow lady. She has further stated
that three to four days prior to the occurrence, also there was
quarrel between the accused and the deceased when the deceased
had been gone to the extent of stopping the cooking and prior to
that, the accused had abused and scolded the deceased for silly
reasons when she was little late in bringing tea and sugar from
the neighbours of the house. The deceased had intimated all these
facts to the husband of P.W.13 over telephone, who had warned
his father (accused) not to quarrel with the deceased. All these
important factual aspects as to the strained relationship between
the accused and the deceased standing for quite a long period
providing the motive to the accused in taking such drastic step to
eliminate the accused when is found to have been established
through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence, we too find that
- 11 -
the evidence of these prosecution witnesses that in the night, the
accused and the deceased were quarreling. The evidence of all
these prosecution witnesses when stand on the score that the
dead body of the deceased with deep cut injury on her neck was
found lying on the verandah of the house in the morning hour,
the accused was not present at the relevant time and the evidence
of the I.O. (P.W.16) reveals that the accused was apprehended at
Hindol and was arrested around 7.30 p.m. The accused having
simply stated that he was then not at home in stating to have
come home when was arrested, which is not at all believable as
he is not stating as to where he had been and for what purpose. In
course of investigation, the check lungi of the accused had been
seized on 21.08.2014, the very day of arrest of the accused and
that being examined, in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the
report has come that it was containing patch of blood of human
origin having Group-O. The Accused has not come forward to
provide any explanation on that score while examining himself as
D.W.1 when the accused states to have arrived at home and saw
his wife lying dead, none of the witnesses, whose evidence we
have already discussed, have stated in that light that during the
day time till the dead body was taken for post mortem
examination, accused had come there when we too find the
positive evidence of the I.O. (P.W.16) that the accused was
arrested in the evening hours at a distant place.
- 12 -
11. On a conspectus of analysis of the evidence hereinabove,
this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the charge
against the accused that he has committed the murder of his wife
Janha beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence dated 12TH April, 2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in
C.T. (SS) Case No.168 of 2014 (C.No.127 of 2016) are hereby
confirmed.
(D. Dash)
Judge
G.Satapathy, J. I Agree.
(G.Satapathy)
Judge
Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 07-Dec-2023 12:31:12
