Orissa High Court
Madhusudan Munda vs State Of Odisha on 24 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
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 31st January, 2020 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No.119 of 2017.
----
Madhusudan Munda .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.Pulakesh Mohanty
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.S.S. Mohapatra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2023 : Date of Judgment:24.07.2023
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 31st January, 2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar
in Sessions Trial No.119 of 2017 arising out of G.R. Case No.933 of
2017 corresponding to Pandapada P.S. Case No.47 of 2017 of the Court
of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Keonjhar.
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
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
{{ 2 }}
undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6)
months for the said offence.
2. Prosecution Case:-
The prosecution case, as it reveals from the written report lodged
by Dhaneswar Munda (P.W.1), who happens to be the son of the
accused, which has been treated as FIR (Ext.1) is that on 06.07.2017 at
about 3.30 p.m., some unknown culprit has murdered of his aunt (Piusi-
Father9s Sister), namely, Geeta Munda by assaulting on her head and
neck by means of an axe.
Receiving the written report of P.W.1, the Officer-in-Charge of
Pandapada Police Station (O.I.C.-P.W.10) treated it as FIR (Ext.1)
registered the case and took up investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.10)
examined the Informant (P.W.1) and held inquest over the dead body of
the deceased by proceeding to the spot and prepared the report to that
effect (Ext.2). Thereafter, he examined other witnesses and prepared the
spot map (Ext.7). He also seized the blood stained and sample earth
from the spot under seizure list. The dead body was sent for post
mortem examination. During then, having found the materials against
the accused to be having the involvement in the crime, he (P.W.10),
arrested the accused and forwarded him in custody to the Court. The
seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through
Court and on completion of the investigation, the Final Form was
submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the
offence under section 302 of the IPC.
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
{{ 3 }}
4. Learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar, on receipt of the Final Form, took
cognizance of the 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 defence plea is that of complete denial and false implication.
6. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total ten
(10) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, P.W.1 is the informant.
P.Ws.2 & 3 both are the nephews of the accused, who had gone to the
spot after the occurrence. P.W.4 is the scribe of the F.I.R. (Ext.1)
whereas P.Ws.5 & 6 are the two neighbours. The Doctor, who had
conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has been
examined as P.W.9 and the I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box
as P.W.10.
7. 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. Out of those, important
are the FIR (Ext.1), inquest report (Ext.2), post mortem (Ext.4), spot
map (Ext.7) and the chemical examiner9s report (Ext.17).
The defence has not tendered any evidence either oral or
documentary in support of the plea of denial and false implication.
8. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence of the Doctor
(P.W.9), who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased as
also other evidence, has arrived at a conclusion that the death of Geeta
(deceased) was homicidal. In fact this aspect of the case was not under
challenge before the Trial Court and that is also the situation before us.
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
{{ 4 }}
9. The Doctor (P.W.9), while conducting the autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased, had noticed several injuries on the vital organs of
the deceased like brain, spinal cord and large vessels of neck etc. It is his
evidence that such injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death has
occasioned for such injuries. He has stated the death of the deceased to
be homicidal. The report (Ext.4) prepared by him reflects all such
injuries in detail. All these injuries have also been noted by the I.O.
(P.W.10) while holding the inquest over the dead body and the inquest
report prepared by him finds such mention. Furthermore, the evidence of
P.W.1 and other witnesses also reveal that they had seen Geeta
(deceased) lying dead with injuries being inflicted upon her. With such
overwhelming evidence on record and since those have remained wholly
unchallenged, we find no difficulty in agreeing with the finding of the
Trial Court that Geeta (deceased) met a homicidal death.
10. Mr.P.Mohatny, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused)
submitted that the prosecution case, at the very beginning, was not that
the accused is the author of the crime. He submitted that the FIR (Ext.1),
being lodged raising suspicion that some unknown culprit/s to have
killed the deceased, at a later point of time, merely on the basis of some
suspicion showing it to be on account of absence of the accused in the
village, he has been arraigned in the case. He further submitted that
when there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime,
the circumstances projected are not of clinching nature that it can be said
that those, being joined, go to form the chain so complete ruling out all
the hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. He submitted that
with the evidence available on record, the Trial Court ought not to have
held the accused to be the author of the crime in intentionally causing
the death of the Geeta (deceased).
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
{{ 5 }}
11. Mr.S.S.Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State-Respondent submitted all in favour of the finding returned by the
Trial court holding the accused guilty of the offence under section 302
of the IPC. It was submitted that in view of the proved fact that the
accused was absent at home, when no explanation is coming from the
side of the accused, that stands as a strong circumstance, in favour of the
prosecution and that, being taken with the seizure of a pair of chappal of
the accused from near the dead body of the deceased, the Trial Court has
rightly convicted the accused.
12. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully gone
through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also gone
through the depositions of the witnesses (P.W1.1 to 10). We have also
perused the documents, which have been admitted in evidence and
marked Exts.1 to 17.
13. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The FIR
(Ext.1) has been lodged in clearly stating the involvement of the hands
of some unknown persons to be there in commission of the said crime.
The dead body of the deceased was found lying on the threshing floor of
the house. The informant (P.W.1) saw the dead body lying in the spot
with cut injuries on neck and he, therefore, suspected someone to have
done Geeta to death. This P.W.1 has not expressed any doubt as to
involvement of the accused in the crime by inferring from the absence of
the accused chappal of the accused were lying near the dead body. So,
how it is said that the deceased and the accused were together shortly
before the incident, we are not able to so comprehend in our mind.
14. P.W.3, who has arrived at the spot although had seen the deceased
lying on the threshing floor of the house, he does not say to have seen
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
{{ 6 }}
the chappal. He simply says to have seen one pair of chappal at the spot,
which was seized by the police. He does not state that said pair of
chappal belongs to the accused. Although the pair of chappal has been
marked as Material Object (M.O.VIII), that has not been shown to this
witness (P.W.3) during his evidence so as to specifically identify those
to be of the accused. So, we are not in a position to say whether that pair
of chapal (M.O.VIII), which had been produced in Court were actually
lying in the spot and the same is of the accused which he used to put on.
P.W.5 has stated that after the incident, the accused absconded
and concealed himself. But such statement to us, appears to be totally
vague when he states that from his chappal lying at the spot, he was
suspected to have committed the murder of Geeta (deceased). The pair
of chappal, which according to the I.O. (P.W.10), were seized and
produced in Court as M.O.VIII have not been shown to this witness
(P.W.5). He has also not deposed that said pair of chappal was being
used by the accused alone. Even though for a moment, we say that the
accused and the deceased were there in the house for sometime, but
what was the time that they had been seen last, is not even stated by any
of the witnesses. The Trial Court appears to have completely erred in
law by accepting the version of this witness (P.W.5) that he had stated
before the I.O (P.W.10) that he had been to the paddy field and had seen
Geeta (deceased) and accused were in their house as that is not the
positive version of the witness (P.W.5) in Court.
With such evidence on record, we find that the Trial Court has
completely gone wrong in holding that the prosecution has established
the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. On the conspectus of the analysis of the evidence let in by
prosecution, we are of the view that the finding of the Trial Court that
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
{{ 7 }}
the prosecution has established the charge against accused, Madhusudan
Munda beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent and acceptable
evidence cannot be sustained and, therefore, the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 31st January, 2020 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No.119 of 2017 are hereby
set aside.
The accused, namely, Madhusudan Munda, who is in custody, be
set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not wanted in any other case.
(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: 24-Jul-2023 14:48:45
JCRLA No.11 of 2020
