Orissa High Court
Baidyanath Randhari vs State Of Odisha on 24 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.7 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
order of sentence dated 8th October, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.161 of 2012.
----
Baidyanath Randhari .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.Rajib Lochan Pattnaik
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.S.S. Kanungo,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Date of Hearing : 26.06.2023 : 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 8th October, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput
at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.161 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case
No.39 of 2012 corresponding to Kotpad P.S. Case No.38 of 2012 of the
Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Kotpad.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for
committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 2 }}
1860 (for short, 8the IPC9). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution Case:-
The prosecution case is that Hiramani Randhari (deceased) had
married the accused six years prior to the incident. It is stated that one
year before the incident, dissension was arising between them due to
some trivial issues or other. It is stated that the accused was picking up
quarrel with the deceased very often. On the intervening night of
13/14.3.2012, around 2.00 a.m., they had a quarrel and in course of that,
it is stated that the accused brutally struck on the head of the deceased
by means of an iron rod causing several fatal injuries resulting her death.
On 14.03.2012 at about 8.30 a.m., the father of the deceased, who
happens to be the father-in-law of the accused, namely, Bhimsen
Randhari (P.W.5), presented a report before the Inspector-in-Charge
(I.I.C.) of Kotpad Police Station (P.S.).
Receiving the said written report from P.W.5, the I.I.C. treated the
same as FIR, registered the case and directed one Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of
Police attached to that P.S. to take up investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.14)
examined the Informant and other witnesses, proceeded to the spot and
made the spot map (Ext.7), held inquest over the dead body of the
deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.1/1). He also sent the dead
body for post mortem examination. He also seized several incriminating
materials under seizure lists and those were sent for chemical
examination through Court.
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 3 }}
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.
4. Learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad, on receipt of the Final Form, as above,
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.
During the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has
stated that he was not present in the house and went to Village
Sandhagaon to attend one obsequy.
6. The prosecution, for establishing the charge, has examined in total
fourteen (14) witnesses during Trial. Out of those, as already stated,
P.W.5 is the father-in-law of the accused and father of the deceased and
he is the informant, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.2). P.Ws.6, 7 & 8 are
the co-villagers of P.W.9 whereas P.W.9 is the elder brother of the
deceased and P.W.10 is the mother-in-law of the deceased as well as the
mother of the accused. The elder brother of the informant (P.W.5) has
been examined as P.W.11 whereas as the Doctors, who had treated and
conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased have been
examined as are P.W.12 & 14 respectively. The I.O., at the end, has
come to the witness box as P.W.14.
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
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 4 }}
are the FIR (Ext.2), inquest report (Ext.1/1), post mortem (Ext.5), spot
map (Ext.7) and the Chemical Examiner9s reports (Ext.13 & Ext.14).
One Laxmidhar Goud, brother-in-law of the accused and
Tulasram Bhatra cousin brother of the deceased have been examined
from the side of the defence during Trial as D.Ws.1 & 2. One certificate
given by the Sarpanch has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.A
by the defence in support of his plea.
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
Hitamani (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.
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) in his own language 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 Hitamani (deceased) lying dead with injuries being
inflicted upon her. With such overwhelming evidence on record going
wholly unchallenged, we find no difficulty in agreeing with the finding
of the Trial Court that Hiramani (deceased) met a homicidal death.
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 5 }}
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the
prosecution case here depends upon the acceptability of the evidence of
P.Ws.6 & 7 before whom it is said that the accused had confessed to
have committed the crime. He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.6 &
7 are wholly unreliable if the tenor of the evidence is carefully marked.
He submitted that a reading to the depositions of P.Ws.6 & 7 would give
the idea as to how unsafe it would be to rely upon the same in holding
the complicity of the accused. He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.6
& 7 is not believable to the extent that the accused had ever confessed to
have committed the murder of his wife before them and, therefore, the
other evidence, which are said to be providing corroboration to the
evidence of P.Ws.6 7 are of no value to be counted upon.
11. Mr.S.S.Kanungo, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State-Respondent submitted that since the evidence of P.Ws.6 & 7
safely pass through all the required tests as to reliability and
acceptability as set-forth under the law, their evidence regarding the
extra judicial confession of the accused, being credible and said
confession of the accused, being true and voluntary, the Trial Court has
rightly convicted the accused for committing the murder of his wife
(Hiramani).
12. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read
the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also gone through the
depositions of the witnesses (P.W1.1 to 14) as well as those of D.Ws.1
& 2 and have perused the documents, which have been admitted in
evidence and marked Exts.1 to 17 along with Ext.A.
13. Before going to judge the sustainability of the finding of the Trial
Court by analyzing the evidence of P.Ws.5, 6 & 7, it has to be kept in
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 6 }}
mind that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and,
therefore, strict scrutiny of the same is necessary. The extra judicial
confession in order to be afforded as a piece of reliable evidence, must
pass through the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or
motive for confession and the persons selected in whom confidence is
reposed. The settled position is that the Court must have due regard to
the followings:-
<a. the persons to whom the confession is made;
b. the connection of the person, if any, with the accused;
c. the occasion or reason for such confession; and
d. the circumstance in which the confession is made=
The evidence when successfully pass through the above tests;
based on said credible and voluntary extra judicial confession,
conviction can be stand.
It has been the enunciated settled position of law that extra
judicial confession, if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by the
Court to convict the accused for commission of the crime. It cannot be
ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person
who has no reason to state falsely or falsely implicate and his evidence
when appears to be credible. Corroboration of such evidence is required
only by way of abundant caution, if the Court believes the witness
before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that it was truly and
voluntarily made, then there would stand no hurdle on the path of
conviction. In any event, the confession has to be voluntary and not the
result of inducement, threat or promise.
14. The prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.6 & 7 are the two in support
of so-called extra judicial confession of the accused. It has been stated
by P.W.6 that one morning around 6.30 a.m., when he and Khemaraj
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 7 }}
Randhari (P.W.7) were going to Kotpad from their villager for daily
labour, near Kala Rice Mill, they saw the accused. The accused told him
that he had killed his wife by means of an iron rod and saying so, he ran
away towards the mango grove. He states that thereafter, he with P.W.7
returned to the village and informed the father of the deceased, i.e.,
P.W.5 about that. Then, they accompanied P.W.5 to the house of the
accused and saw Hiramani lying dead and near her dead body, an iron
rod was lying. The evidence of this witness do not reveal that what was
the distance between the house of the accused and Kela Rice Mill where
the accused was first seen by him and P.W.7. It is also not stated by
P.W.6 as to why the accused had come to that place and what he was
then doing, whether he was standing or he was proceeding to some other
place or was engaged in something. Bereft of all these, his evidence
appears to be unbelievable as there is no scope to take a firm view that
this P.W.6 had meet the accused in his way. Then interesting part of his
evidence is when he says that no sooner did they see the accused; the
accused confessed to have killed his wife by assaulting her by means of
iron rod. But his next part of evidence is really astonishing when he says
that thereafter the accused ran away. One confess before a person having
absolute confidence and reliance on that person before whom he and
P.W.7 who were chosen by the accused, feels it safe to confess and that
in the present case, if we take to be P.W.6, then why at all the accused
would immediately after confession start running, which rather shows
that it was to get rid of that very P.W.6 and P.W.7 before whom he
confessed. So, the evidence of P.W.6 regarding the confession before
this P.W.6 and then running are not only two contradictory conduct but
also irreconcilable and those, being taken together, gives an impression
in mind that since the accused had no confidence with P.W.6 thinking
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 8 }}
that lest he might get him booked in the case as having prior knowledge
about the incident, he started to run from the place. This witness, being
cross-examined, has then stated that he had a talk with the accused one
year before the occurrence and seen the accused two days prior to the
occurrence. This P.W.6 also does not state as to why the accused come
near Kila Rice Mill and how he comes to them. His evidence is as if the
accused was waiting there keeping it in mind that when P.Ws.6 & 7
would pass through the road; he would confess before them the sin that
he had committed.
When such is the evidence of P.W.6, the evidence of P.W.7 is to
the effect that when he with P.W.6 were coming to Kotpad from their
village on the way, near Kela Rice Mill, they meet the accused, who
then told before them that on account of his dispute with the deceased
concerning the mobile phone, he had killed his wife (deceased) by
means of iron rod. When P.W.7 states the accused told P.W.6 is silent as
to that part. Even though P.W.6 has not stated the exact words spoken
by the accused, his evidence is not to the effect that he knew about the
reason for the dispute between the accused and the deceased and the
reason for such incident finally took place and, therefore, told by the
accused before them. This P.W.7 has further stated that the accused, at
that point of time, was behaving like a 8BAYA9, which in village
parlance refers to some kind of mental illness and accordingly, the
person is addressed. This witness more interestingly has stated that prior
to the occurrence, he had even not known the accused when the fact
remains that P.Ws.6 & 7 hail from same village under Kotpad P.S. Thus,
it does not appeal to the mind that how was it that the accused would
confess before a person whom he did not know and how then he would
feel that his future despite that would be safe under him.
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 9 }}
The evidence of P.W.5, the informant is based upon the evidence
of P.Ws.6 & 7 that they had told before him that it was the accused, who
had intentionally cause the death of his wife (deceased).
The daughter of P.W.5 was no doubt found lying dead in the
house of the accused but then no other evidence is available on record
that short before that, it was the deceased and the accused, who were
staying in the house and none-else and that in the previous night, they
together had slept in the house and in the morning, the death had taken
place. The prosecution has not piloted any evidence in showing any such
circumstances so as to put the legal obligation upon the accused to
provide somehow acceptable explanation as to how the incident could so
happen in his house in showing possibility of said happening through
other hands and in that event, the Court would have been justified in
ruling in favour of the guilt of the accused.
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
the prosecution has established the charge against accused, Baidyanath
Randhari beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent and
acceptable evidence cannot be sustained.
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 8th October, 2015 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.161 of 2012
are hereby set aside.
JCRLA No.7 of 2016
{{ 10 }}
The accused, namely, Baidyanath Randhari, who is in custody, be
set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not wanted in connection with
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.7 of 2016
