Orissa High Court
Sanju @ Sanjay Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha on 6 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.67 of 2011
Sanju @ Sanjay Kumar Mohanty .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rabindra Nath Nayak,
Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
JUDGMENT
06.07.2023
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th
February 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada
in ST Case No.1/203 of 2007-2006 convicting the Appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life along with fine of
5000/- and in default to undergo RI for three months.
2. The Appellant along with his mother (A2) was sent up for trial
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/302/304B/34 of
IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act). They
were charged with inter alia having committed murder of Sumana
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:11
Mohanty, the wife of the Appellant on the intervening night of 3rd
/4th July, 2006.
3. By the impugned judgment, while the trial court convicted the
Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him in the manner indicated, it acquitted A2 of all the
offences with which she was charged. The trial Court also
acquitted the present Appellant for the remaining offences under
Section 498-A/304-B read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the DP
Act.
4. The Appellant has remained in custody throughout.
5. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Rabindra Nath
Nayak, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Rajesh
Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
6. In order to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC against the
Appellant, the prosecution fielded several eye-witnesses of which
the star witness was Pritinanda Mekap (P.W.5) who was the
Informant. She confirmed that the Appellant along with his
mother and the deceased were living in a portion of a house
belonging to Ratnakar Gochhayat i.e., the brother-in-law of P.W.5
on rent at Murgabadi in Baripada Town.
7. P.W.5 deposed that the Appellant had married the deceased on
17th May 2006 and was in the house of Ratnakar Gochhayat, the
brother-in-law of P.W.5.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:11
8. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the Appellant started
suspecting the chastity of the deceased and was often noticed
scolding her. He also blamed the deceased as characterless and
that she had an abortion prior to the marriage. The deceased used
to confide in P.W.5 about the behavior of the Appellant.
9. It is stated that on 3rd July 2006 at 9AM, the Appellant left with
the deceased and subsequently left her in the house one Ashok
Shandha. He proceeded for work at Aditya Motors in Station
Bazar in Baripada. On that date, A2, the mother of the Appellant
was not present at home.
10. At about 8PM, the deceased and the Appellant returned home
and half an hour thereafter, the deceased came running into P.W.5
to state that the Appellant was suspecting her character since
water like secretion was emerging from her breasts.
11. P.W.5 tried to convince the Appellant that this was due to
hormonal changes and in case of doubt they could consult the
gynecologist on the next date. In the night at around 1.30AM,
P.W.5 heard the cry of the deceased and the sound of the
Appellant assaulting her. P.W.5 and her husband then found the
Appellant chasing the deceased armed with a club abusing her of
being a prostitute, characterless and asking her to leave his house
in the night itself failing which he would cut her into pieces. He
also claimed not to be afraid of going to jail.
12. P.W.5 is stated to have intervened and sent her husband to call
the mediator Rasaraj Khuntia (P.W.9). Thereafter, P.W.9 and his
wife Basanti Khuntia (P.W.4) reached the house of P.W.5 and all
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:11
of them tried to pacify the Appellant who continued to threaten to
cut the deceased into pieces. P.W.4 and P.W.9 waited till about
3.30AM for the matter to subside, after which the Appellant and
the deceased went to their house. P.W.5 also went to bed. The
next morning at 6AM, P.W.5 woke up and at 6.30AM, found the
Appellant standing outside her house. She then enquired about the
deceased. The Appellant told her that the deceased might have
slept in another room.
13. At around 7AM, P.W.5 noticed the flow of blood from the
kitchen room of the accused. She informed this to her husband.
The husband of P.W.5 immediately called P.W.9 who then came
along with his wife. They asked the Appellant to call Sumana to
take her to the Doctor.
14. The Appellant is then stated to have pushed the door of the
kitchen room and then exclaimed how this has happened (A
KANA HELA).
15. When P.W.5 and others looked into the kitchen room, they
found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with the portion of
saree of the deceased being burnt.
16. P.W.5 then informed the Police. Basing on which Baripada
Town P.S. Case No.107 of 2006 was registered and investigation
was taken up. The Appellant was arrested from the spot and the
Paniki (Club) used in killing the deceased was also seized.
17. The evidence of P.W.5 was therefore most crucial for the
prosecution. She cogently narrated in her examination-in-chief of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:11
what had transpired on the intervening night of 3rd/4th July, 2006.
The cross-examination of P.W.5 actually did not yield much for
the defence.
18. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded to analyze the entire
evidence and acquitted the A2 of all the offences and the
Appellant all offences except under Section 302 IPC. The
evidence against the present Appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC is indeed overwhelming. P.W.5, an
independent person, was clear, cogent and consistent. She was
therefore a reliable witness. It is well settled that the testimony of
even a single witness can be valuable as long as it is corroborated
by other witnesses and sources. With the eye-witness testimony
being fully corroborated by medical evidence, the prosecution did
in fact prove the case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt.
19. Consequently, the Court finds no reason to interfere the
impugned judgment of the trial court. The appeal accordingly
dismissed.
(S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S.K. Guin/PA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:11
