Ratan Munda vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8067 Ori

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           JCRLA No.53 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 19th July, 2016 passed by the
    learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial
    No.302/135/151 of 2011-2013.
                                       ----

         Ratan Munda                            ....        Appellant


                                   -versus-

         State of Odisha                        ....       Respondent

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

                For Appellant      -        Mr.S.J.Mohanty
                                            (Advocate)

                For Respondent -            Mr.P.K.Mohanty,
                                            Additional Standing Counsel
    CORAM:
    MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
    DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

    Date of Hearing : 07.07.2023        :     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 the order of

sentence dated 19th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial No.302/135/151 of 2011-

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 2 }}

2013 arising out of G.R. Case No.349 of 2011 corresponding to

Koira P.S. Case No.60 of 2011 of the Court of the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bonai.

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 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 offence under

section 302 IPC.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 22.07.2011 evening, when one Raut Munda (informant-

P.W.2) was sitting near the house of his brother, namely, Raka

Munda, the accused Ratan Munda arrived there with a knife. It is

said that the accused then entered inside the house of Raka and

inflicted blows on his chest by means of that knife when Raka

was sleeping inside his house. The accused then also caused

several other injuries on the chest of Raka with the blunt side of

that taniga. Receiving those injures, Raka died then and there. It

has also been stated in the FIR that prior to the incident, there

was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased (who are

two brothers) and the accused had given threat of life to Raka.

The accused, after inflicting the blows by knife, escaped from spot

by giving the threat to the inmates of the house that if anybody

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 3 }}

would raise his voice, he would face the same consequence. On

the next morning, Raut Munda (informant-P.W.2-) lodged a

written report with the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police present at

Koira Police Station (P.S.) as the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of

that P.S. was absent. The S.I. of Police, in the absence of the I.I.C.,

treated the written report (Ext.1) as the FIR, registered the case

and took up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-

P.W.12) examined the Informant (P.W.2) and recorded his

statement and those of other witnesses under section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The spot map was prepared

and inquest over the dead body was held by this I.O. (P.W.12).

The report to that effect (Ext.2) was prepared in presence of the

witnesses. The dead body of Raka (deceased) was then sent for

post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The

accused, being arrested, was medically examined and while in

police custody, he is said to have stated regarding the keeping of

the tangia. So, that statement was recorded under Ext.3 and then

it is is said that the accused having led the I.O. (P.W.12) and

others to the place of keeping of that tangia and axe, gave

recovery of the same, which was then seized under the seizure

list (Ext.12). The accused was then forwarded in custody to Court.

The incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination

through Court and finally, on completion of the of the

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 4 }}

investigation, the I.O. (P.W.12) submitted the Final Form placing

the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under

section 302 of the IPC.

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Bonai, 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 twelve (12) witnesses during trial. As already stated, P.W.2,

is the Informant and elder brother of Raka (deceased) who had

lodged the written report (Ext.1). The nephew (younger brother9s

son) of Raka (deceased) has been examined as P.W.1. The Doctor,

who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead

body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.7. The I.O. has

come to the witness box at the end as P.W.12.

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 13.

Out of those, important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2);

post mortem report (Ext.4); and the statement of the accused

(Ext.3) as also the Chemical Examiner9s report (Ext.13).

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 5 }}

6. The plea of the accused is that of complete denial. No

evidence has, however, been tendered from the side of the

accused in support of his defence.

7. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence let in by the

prosecution and having analyzed the same at its level, has

rendered the finding that the prosecution has proved the charge

against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that it is the

accused, who had intentionally caused the death of Raka

(deceased).

8. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence of the

Doctor (P.W.7), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead

body of the deceased and his report (Ext.5) as well as the the

evidence of the I.O. (P.W.12), who held the inquest over the dead

body of the deceased and prepared the report, which has been

proved as Ext.3 and those of other witnesses, has arrived at a

conclusion that the deceased has met a homicidal death. In fact,

said aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial

Court and that is also the position before us in this Appeal.

The Doctor (P.W.7), during post mortem examination, has

stated to have found two numbers of incised wounds; one above

the mid stermum and another below the left sternum and

abrasions on his left leg and chest. He had also noticed fracture of

4th, 5th & 6th ribs of the left side chest cavity of the deceased. On

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 6 }}

dissection, P.W.10 had noticed the injury to brain near occipital

area. As per his evidence, all these injuries are ante mortem in

nature and the cause of death was on account of the shock and

haemorrhage due to the injuries on the lungs and for the fractures

of ribs. The I.O. (P.W.12) has also so noted during his inquest.

With such voluminous evidence on record, which have remained

unquestioned, we find absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with

the finding of the Trial Court that the deceased met a homicidal

death.

9. Mr.S.J.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant

(accused), while not disputing the nature of death of Raka

(deceased) as homicidal as reveals from the evidence of Doctor,

who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased and other witnesses including the I.O. (P.W.12) and

their reports to that effect, submitted that the Trial court has erred

in relying upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1 in fastening the

guilt upon the accused. Inviting the attention of the Court to the

deposition of P.W.1, he submitted that the basic infirmity being

clearly noticed therein when no other corroborative evidence has

been let in, the Trial Court ought not to have held the accused to

be guilty of committing the offence of murder of Raka Munda

(deceased).

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 7 }}

10. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for

the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of the

Trial Court that it is the accused, who is the author of the injuries

received by the deceased on his chest by means of that knife and

tangia. He further submitted that when the Trial Court, assigning

very good reasons, has found the evidence of P.W.1 to be wholly

reliable and safe to be acted upon, the finding as to the guilt of

the accused is not liable to be interfered with.

11. 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 12) and have perused

the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13.

12. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the

accused, relies upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1.

It is the settled principle of law that in order to base a

conviction, the testimony of one witness would be enough

provided his/her evidence is found to be wholly trustworthy and

free from any such infirmity touching the root or shaking the

substratum. The evidence of that solitary witness must be clear,

cogent and above the board so as to be accepted and acted upon

in fastening the guilt.

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 8 }}

13. In the backdrop of above, in order to address the rival

submission, the testimony of P.W.1 is now required to be

examined.

He has stated that he is the nephew of the deceased (son of

younger brother Raka Munda). He has stated that when the

incident took place around 5.00 p.m. in their house, he was

cooking food and then his elder father Raka was sleeping. He has

further stated that accused then came with a tangia and dealt

three blows on the chest of the deceased on the blunt side of that

tangia whereafter the accused further inflicted two more blows

on the chest of the deceased with a knife causing profuse

bleeding injuries. It is his evidence that when he protested, the

accused, putting him on fear, ran away. The response of the

witness is that he immediately reported the matter to his brother

Kulu Munda, who has been examined as P.W.4.

The witness, having been cross-examined, the defence, as it

appears, has simply out some contradiction as to the number of

blows given by the accused with the blunt side of the tangia and

further two blows with knife on his chest. But, then very

interestingly, those have not been proved through the I.O.

(P.W.12), which shows that such suggestion thrown upon P.W.1

that he had not stated earlier regarding that number of blows by

using the blunt side of taniga and number of blows on chest were

actually not missing in the earlier statement. The presence of

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 9 }}

P.W.1, at the relevant time at home, has been proved and it has

also been proved through P.W.1 that the deceased was then

sleeping in the house. No material is shown before us to have

been elicited during cross-examination of P.W.1 that either his

presence in the house at that time was doubtful nor the presence

of the deceased is appearing to surrounding with suspicion. We

too also do not find any probable reason to entertain a feeling in

our mind that this witness (P.W.1) would falsely implicate this

accused and on that score, there is no material to even provide

remote linkage. The evidence of P.W.1, in our view, appears to be

wholly reliable and having no inherent improbabilities and,

therefore, no corroboration is required to act upon the same

merely because he is the nephew of the deceased, which is not

enough to conclude that he would be falsely implicating anyone

in the murder of his elder brother.

14. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.2 lends support to the

evidence of P.W.1 that he immediately having rushed to the spot,

found the dead body of the deceased lying with the weapon of

offence. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that there are

certain discrepancies with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and the I.O.

(P.W.12) as to the leaving of the weapons such as tangia and axe

and their seizure. According to him, the discrepancies on that

score are reconcilable and, therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is

liable to be rejected. We are afraid to accept such submission

JCRLA No.53 of 2016 {{ 10 }}

when we find the evidence of P.W.1 to be wholly trustworthy and

above the board, but then too the role of by the accused in

causing the injuries on the chest of the deceased, which is

receiving corroboration from the evidence Doctor (P.W.7), who

had conducted the post mortem examination. Therefore, we find

all the reasons to hold that the prosecution has established the

charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

On a conspectus of analysis of the evidence hereinabove,

this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case against

the accused as having committed the murder of Raka beyond

reasonable doubt

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

conviction and the order of sentence dated 19th July, 2016 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai, in Sessions Trial

No.302/135/151 of 2011-2013 are hereby confirmed.

(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: 25-Jul-2023 11:15:48

JCRLA No.53 of 2016