Santosh Mohanta @ Choudhury vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8035 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               JCRLA No.04 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 26.11.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional
        Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2015.
                                      ----

Santosh Mohanta @ Choudhury ..... Appellant

-versus-

             State of Odisha                     .....         Respondent

                Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                          (Virtual/Physical Mode:

================================================== For Appellant - Ms. Bijayalaxmi Tripathy, Advocate,

For Respondent - Mr. S.K. Nayak Additional Govt. Advocate.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING :22.06.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT:24.07.2023

D.Dash, J. The Appellant from inside the jail has challenged the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2015 passed by the

learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial

No.16 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.2109 of 2014

corresponding to Raghunathpali P.S. Case No.204(7) of 2014 of the

Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.),

Panposh.

JCRLA No.04 of 2016 {{ 2 }}

The Appellant (accused), thereunder has been convicted for

committing offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short 'the IPC') and he has been sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The prosecution case is that on 15 to 17 days prior to the

occurrence, the accused who happens to be the brother of the Informant

(P.W.4) had come to the house of the Informant for his treatment. On

prior occasions, the accused used to come to the house of the Informant

and stay there for some period. The accused was not liking the

proximity of one Paramananda Mahanta (deceased) to the family of his

sister (Informant-P.W.4). The accused was suspecting some illicit

relationship between his sister and the deceased. He therefore was

quarrelling with the deceased. Whenever he was visiting the house of

his sister (Informant-P.W.4), the Informant (P.W.4) was always

denying about such suspected relationship of the deceased. As per the

version of the Informant (P.W.4) was looking after the management of

the hotel run by the Informant (P.W.4) and the house. The accused was

however not being convinced with said presented explanation. On

11.09.2014 around 8.30 pm, when the Informant (P.W.4) was in her

hotel and her sons and husband were not in the house; Paramananda

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 3 }}

came to the hotel. Having seen Paramananda in the hotel, the Informant

(P.W.4) asked him to take food, Paramananda then told that he would

take food later and so saying Paramananda went to the house of the

Informant (P.W.4) situated on the backside of that hotel standing by the

side of the Babamani Patrol Pump at Rourkela. Paramananda

(deceased) went there to sleep. After about 10 minute, the accused

came and went to the house of the Informant (P.W.4). It was around

9.30 pm, when one Tura Sardar (P.W.5), who was working in the hotel

of the Informant (P.W.4) went to the house to keep certain articles. He

then found the door of the house to have been closed being bolted from

inside. So, he came back and told all those to the Informant (P.W.4).

The Informant (P.W.4) then with P.W.5 went to her house and then she

also found the door to have been locked from inside. The Informant

(P.W.4) went and knocked the door of the house. Responding to said

knock by Informant (P.W.4), the accused opened the door of the house.

No sooner did the accused open the door, he pushed the Informant

(P.W.4) and ran away from the place towards the paddy field on the

back side of that hotel; P.W.5, the worker of the hotel, who was with

the Informant (P.W.4) tried to restrain the accused but failed and the

accused managed to flee from the house by taking the benefit of the

darkness in that area during the relevant time. The Informant (P.W.4)

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 4 }}

then entered into the house and found the dead body of Paramananda

with cut injuries on the neck and other parts of the body being inflicted

by a sharp cutting weapon to be lying in his house. She (P.W.4) was

surprised to see Paramananda died inside the house and lying in an

injured condition. Finally, it was around 10.30 pm on 11.09.2014, the

Informant (P.W.4) reported the matter in writing to the Inspector-in-

Charge (IIC), Raghunathpali Police Station. The IIC (P.W.8) treating

the said written report of P.W.4 as F.I.R., registered case and took up

investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.8)

examined the Informant (P.W.4) and other witnesses. He also

conducted inquest over the dead body by proceeding to the spot. The

dead body was then sent by him for postmortem examination by

issuing requisition. He also seized several incriminating articles under

the seizure list. The spot being visited by the I.O.(P.W.8), he then

prepared the spot map. The accused on 12.09.2014 was apprehended

by the I.O. (P.W.8). Accused while in police custody gave the

statement. Pursuant to his statement, he led the police to give recovery

of the knife which had been kept by him inside the bush on the

backside of that hotel of the Informant (P.W.4). The I.O. (P.W.8)

recorded the statement of the accused under Ext.13 and having

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 5 }}

followed the accused to the place when accused gave recovery of the

axe, the same was seized under the seizure list. The accused was then

forwarded in custody to Court. The incriminating articles were sent for

chemical examination on the prayer of the I.O. (P.W.8).

On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.8) submitted the

Final Form, placing the accused to face the trial for commission of

offence under section-302 of the IPC.

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Panposh having received the Final Form as

above, took cognizance of the 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 said offence against

the accused.

5. In the Trial, the prosecution examined in total eight (8)

witnesses. Out of them as already stated, P.W.4 is the Informant. The

Doctor who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased has

been examined as P.W.7. The worker of the hotel, who had been to the

house of the Informant (P.W.4) and saw the door of the house to have

been locked from inside has come to the witness box as P.W.5. The son

of the P.W.4 has been examined as P.W.6. As already stated, the

Investigating Officer is P.W. 8.

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 6 }}

6. The prosecution besides leading evidence by examining the

above witnesses has also proved several documents which have been

admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 17. Out of those, the

important are the F.I.R. (Ext.5), the postmortem report (Ext.7), inquest

report, Ext. 6 and the statement of the accused pursuant to which the

recovery of axe (M.O.-I) and the knife (M.O.-II) was made had been

admitted in evidence and marked Ext.13. The report of the Chemical

Examiner is Ext.17.

7. The defence has tendered not any evidence in support of the plea

of complete denial and false implication.

8. The Trial Court on examination of the evidence on record and

their analysis has held the accused guilty of committing the murder of

Paramananda and accordingly, the accused has been convicted and

sentenced as aforestated.

9. Ms. B.L. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused)

submitted that the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the

evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 and therefore, the finding of guilt

returned against the accused is the outcome of perverse appreciation of

evidence and thus cannot stand to the scrutiny. He further submitted

that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and all these three

witnesses, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are post occurrence witnesses and that too

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 7 }}

their evidence greatly differ from one another on material particulars

and from what they have stated, it would be extremely hazardous to

hold that its none other than the accused is author of the crime.

10. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that all though there is

no such eye witness to the occurrence yet, the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5

and 6, when are read together with the proven circumstances prevailing

during that time, there is not escape from the conclusion that it is the

accused who has committed the murder of the deceased and none else

could have even done so.

11. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully gone

through the judgment passed by the Trial Court and we have also

extensively travelled through the depositions of the prosecution

witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 8 and have perused the documents which have

been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 17.

12. The nature of death of Paramananda as homicidal is not in

dispute. The Doctor who had held autopsy over the deceased i.e. P.W.7

has stated to have found several external injuries numbering ten (10)

and most of those injuries are on vital part of the body. She has noted

all these in her report Ext.7. According to her, all those injuries are

antemortem in nature and she having examined the seized axe and

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 8 }}

knife has answered that said injuries are possible with the said weapon.

The report to that effect has been proved by her and marked Ext.8.

With such evidence of the Doctor, the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.7)

who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased also appears

to be of importance. P.W.7 has noted such injuries in his own language

in the inquest report, Ext.6. Other witnesses have also stated to have

seen the dead body with said external injuries. All such evidences

having remained unchallenged, we find no point to record our

disapproval as to the nature of death as held to be homicidal.

13. Admittedly, the accused had gone to the house of his sister-

P.W.4 and he was also in visiting terms to the house of P.W.4. The

accused during that spell had gone to her house with some health

problem and was residing with her. It has been stated by her that on the

previous day of the occurrence, the accused had a quarrel with the

deceased, who used to stay with P.W.4 from his childhood days along

with other members of the family of P.W.4. She has further stated that

the accused being asked as to why he was picking up quarrel with

Paramananda, it was told that he should behave like a guest. The reply

of the accused was as to why deceased-Paramananda was behaving

like the owner of the house and hotel.

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 9 }}

P.W.4 has further stated that it was around 8.30 pm,

Paramananda telling her went to sleep in the house, which was situated

on the backside of the hotel run by P.W.4. It is also her evidence that

accused was sitting near the Tulasi Chaura outside the house and

sometime thereafter when P.W.4 instructed another worker-P.W.5 to

wash the utensils and keep it in the house that P.W.5 having gone to

the house with the utensils, found the room to have locked from inside.

She has further deposed that P.W.5 then came and reported the matter

for which the P.Ws. 4 & 5 together went and then P.W.4 knocked at

the door. It has been deposed by her that at that point of time, her

brother (accused) opened the door and pushing her aside and fled

away. Then it is the stated by P.W.4 that P.W.5 shouted "Mora Puake

Karidela; Mora Puake Maridela" (my son was killed; my son was

killed). P.W.4 then saw the deceased-Paramananda lying dead in pool

of blood with cut injuries on neck, belly and body and the axe and

knife were also found nearby. So, the evidence of P.W.4 is that the

house being locked from inside, when was opened by accused none

else was present in the house and immediately, thereafter Paramananda

was found dead lying in pool of blood with injuries all over his body

and then accused opening the door managed to escape by giving push

at P.W.4. Above evidence of P.W.4 receive full corroboration from the

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 10 }}

evidence of P.W.5, who has stated that having washed the utensils as

directed by P.W.4, when he went to the house situated on the backside

of the hotel, he found the door to have locked from inside. He has also

stated that seeing the condition of the door, he returned to the hotel of

the Informant (P.W.4). So, P.W.4 and he again went and knocked the

door. He has stated that in the same vein as that of P.W.4 that accused

opened the door and fled away by pushing P.W.4 aside who was then

just near the entrance. He states that then they found Paramananda

lying dead with a pool of blood and with the cut injuries on the neck

and axe and knife were lying nearby.

14. The evidence of P.W.4 during cross-examination is more

emphatic that at the relevant time, Paramananda and accused were the

two who were inside the house and none else. When it has been stated

by P.W.4 that she had seen the axe and knife lying near the dead body,

she has not stated so in course of investigation. But that in our

considered view is of not that significance or impact to entirely

disbelieve the assertive version of P.W.4 that no sooner did accused

opened the door, he pushed her and fled away and at that point of time

Paramananda was seen lying dead with injuries.

P.W.5 although has been cross-examined, we find no such

material to have elicited to discard his version. He has further stated

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 11 }}

that the light at that time was sufficient and he has also been

emphatically that none else except the accused came out to the house.

He states that when they knocked the door being present in front of the

door, the accused opened the door and escaped and then they saw

Paramananda lying dead with injuries in pool of blood. Above being

the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, we find the evidence of P.W.6 to the

effect that he had seen the accused who has his maternal uncle sitting

near the Tulasi Chaura of the house. This P.W.6 is the son of P.W.4

and he has stated that when P.W.5 had been to the house to keep the

utensils and returned finding the door closed from inside, he informed

P.W.4 who was in the hotel and then he was present. He has further

stated that such information really surprised to them as Paramananda

never used to bolt the door from inside. This P.W.6 appears to have not

gone to the house and later to have heard from her mother and P.W.5

as to what they saw after they together went to the house. He however

stated that hearing shout of his mother, he had been to the place and

saw Paramananda lying dead with cut injuries in his leg, neck and

hand.

Defence having cross-examined all these above witnesses

appears to have not been able to bring out any such material to cast any

doubt over the version of those witnesses with regard to any such

JCRLA No. 04 of 2016 {{ 12 }}

important facet including their presence. The accused then also does

not provide any explanation that before he opened the door, what

actually happened in showing that he had no role to play. With such

evidence on record over which we are not in a position even to raise

any slightest doubt; the Trial Court's finding holding the accused

guilty of committing murder of Paramananda in ultimately concluding

that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt, in our view is well in order.

15. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 26th November, 2015 passed by

the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial

Case No.16 of 2015 are hereby confirmed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

                                     Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J.     I Agree.



                                                                                 (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi),
                                                                                        Judge.
             Narayan

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: NARAYAN HO
Designation: Peresonal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Jul-2023 11:14:44



                               JCRLA No. 04 of 2016