Orissa High Court
Bandhana Tigga vs State Of Odisha on 4 December, 2023
Bench: D.Dash, G.Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.09 of 2016
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 18th December, 2015 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions
Trial No.73 of 2014.
----
Bandhana Tigga .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.P.R.Chhatoi
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mrs.Saswata Patnaik
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing : 14.11.2023 : 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 18th December, 2015 passed by the learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.73 of
2014 arising out of G.R. Case No.2799 of 2013 corresponding to
Brahmanitarang P.S. Case No.199 of 2013 of the Court of the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Panposh.
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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one (1) year.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 12.12.2013 around 7.00 p.m, when Goinda Tigga and
Budhu Tigga, the parents of the Informant, namely, Jolen Tigga
(P.W.3) were there in their house, the accused, who happens to be
the brother of Goinda picked up quarrel with them and
thereafter, assaulted them by means of a Tangia (axe) and
intentionally caused their death at the spot.
Jolen Tigga (Informant-P.W.3), having learnt about the
incident, came to the house and saw the dead body of his parents
lying in a pool of blood. He (P.W.3) reported the matter in writing
to the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Brahmanitarang P.S. The IIC,
treating the same as FIR (Ext.1), registered the case and directed
Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.13) to take up the investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-
P.W.13) examined the Informant (P.W.3) and recorded his
statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The I.O. (P.W.13)
requisitioned the service of the Scientific Officer. Having visited
the spot, the I.O. (P.W.13) prepared the spot map (Ext.14). The
I.O. (P.W.13) held inquest over the dead bodies and prepared the
reports (Exts.2 & 3) and sent the same for post mortem
examination by issuing necessary requisition.
On 14.12.2013, the I.O. (P.W.13) apprehended the accused
and it is stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the
statement to have concealed the weapon and stated that if he
would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same.
Pursuant to the statement, 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.13) under seizure list (Ext.10).
The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical
examination through Court. On completion of the investigation,
Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for
commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
4. Learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, 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 thirteen (13) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the
informant, who happens to be the son of the deceased persons, is
P.W.3 whereas P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Goinda Tigga
and this accused. P.W.2 is a post occurrence witness who heard
about the incident from P.W.1. P.W.4 is the police constable and a
witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels, blood sample,
sample hair, nail clippings of the deceased persons. The Doctor,
who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased, has been examined as P.W.7. The I.O., at the end has
come to the witness box, as P.W.13.
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 18.
Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2);
spot map (Ext.14); and the post mortem report (Ext.7). The
reports of the Chemical Examiner has been admitted in evidence
and marked Exts.17 & 18.
6. The accused, having taken the plea of complete denial and
false implication, has, however, taken a specific plea that due to
the land dispute, a false case has been foisted against him.
7. Mr.P.R. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Appellant
(accused) submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is
based on the testimony of P.Ws.1 & 10 when all other witnesses,
who have been examined are either post occurrence witnesses or
have assisted the I.O. (P.W.13) in course of investigation. It was
submitted that the Trial Court, without proper appreciation of the
evidence of both these witnesses and having not analyzed the
same with the surrounding circumstances, which have emerged
from the prosecution version falling from the lips of other
witnesses, has erroneously concluded that the prosecution has
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
view of all these above, he urged that the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, which are impugned in this Appeal, are
liable to be set aside.
8. Mrs.S. Patnaiak, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of
guilt against the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court.
According to her, the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 10, who are the
natural eye witnesses to the occurrence have firmly stood on the
ground and there being no such material to point out any
infirmity therein, the Trial Court is absolutely right in convicting
the accused for committing the double murder. In view of all
these above, she submitted that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence are well in order do not warrant interference in
this Appeal.
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 13) and have perused
the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 187.
10. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.7), who had conducted the
post mortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased
persons is very clear on the point that he had noticed two incised
wounds over the dead body of Budhu; one on the left side of the
neck below the ear and another on the left side of the neck behind
the left ear. As per his evidence, these injuries were ante mortem
in nature and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the
death. On dissection, the incised wound was found to have
extended deep into the mouth cavity with clearcut of mandible
bone at left side of mouth cavity and also to the lyrinx and
trachea with the cutting of tracheal rings and lyrings. Similarly,
the Doctor (P.W.7) had noticed four incise wounds on the left side
of the face and neck of the other deceased (Goinda Tigga). It has
also been stated by this Doctor (P.W.7) that these injuries were
ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause the death. He, having examined the Tangia (axe)
seized in course of the investigation, has opined that these
injuries were possible by means of that Tangia (axe) and that he
has reported that these injuries were possible by means of that
Tangia (axe) and that he has reported and stated during his
evidence. The reports (Exts.7 & 8) as also the opinion under Ext.9
narrat all these findings. Besides the above, we find that the
evidence of the I.O. (P.W.13), who, having held the inquest over
the dead bodies, had noted all such injuries indicating their seats
in the inquest reports (Exts.2 & 3). The other witness including
P.Ws.1 & 10 have also stated that the deceased persons with such
injuries were lying in a pool of blood.
With such overwhelming evidence on record, which have
gone unquestioned, we are left with no option but to concur with
the finding that Goinda & Budhu met homicidal death.
11. It now leads us to address the rival submission first as to
the acceptability of the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 10 and to judge the
sustainability of finding of conviction.
P.W.1 is the brother of the accused and deceased Goinda.
The other deceased is his sister-in-law. As per his evidence, his
house situates at a distance of 20 meters from the house of the
deceased persons. He has stated that on that day, around evening
hours, having heard the shout from the house of the deceased
persons, he rushed there and saw the accused dealing blows by
means of Tangia (axe) upon the deceased persons. It is stated that
having witnessed such incident in his eyes, he got scared and
apprehensive of being assaulted fled from the spot and went to
the house of one Madhab Toppo where he remained till the
morning. His response is that he immediately informed the son of
the deceased (Informnt-P.W.3), who was then in his in-law's
house in a different village. Except throwing the suggestions to
the witness that he had been tutored, we do not find any other
circumstance to have been elicited from him during cross-
examination to disbelieve his version. When he states that he
intimated the son of the deceased persons, he, having not given
any intimation to the police is of no impact and cannot be taken
to be in any way as an adverse conduct, which being argued by
the learned counsel for the Appellant does not impress us to
think in that direction.
P.W.10 is the wife of the younger brother of deceased
Goinda as well as this accused. She has stated that she was in the
house at the time of occurrence, which took place when she had
not taken supper. She states to have seen the accused quarreling
with Budhu Tigga and when hearing this, she went there, the
accused in her presence killed Budhu by means of Tangia (axe).
She has also stated that seeing the occurrence, she was scared and
went to the house of Madhab and returned only in the morning.
Although a suggestion has been given to this P.W.10 that she had
not stated before the I.O. (P.W.13) to have seen the accused
dealing blows on Budhu, the same has not been proved through
the I.O. (P.W.13), which on verification by us is found to be
otherwise and not in support of the suggestion. Even without
going to discuss the other evidence on record that through the
evidence of these two witnesses, which are clear, cogent and
acceptable, we find the prosecution has well established the
charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence dated 18th December, 2015
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in
Sessions Trial No.73 of 2014 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
