Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Serkula Jamuna on 21 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No. 4 of 2005
State of Orissa .... Petitioner
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Serkula Jamuna .... Opposite Party
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 21.06.2023
04. 1. This petition filed by the State seeks leave to appeal against the
judgment dated 31st October, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in S.C. No.214/2002 whereby
the Opposite Party-Accused was acquitted of the offences under
Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The Opposite Party accused happens to be the wife of one
Trinath, who supposed to have in furtherance of common intention
of herself and other co-accused, committed the murder of one
Kakulu Ragulu in the intervening night of 3rd and 4th November,
2001 and thereafter, they are said to have caused the disappearance
of evidence. Admittedly, the co-accused Trinath was absconding at
the time of filing of the charge sheet and during the trial. The
accused is said to belong to the 'wandering tribe' of 'Uttarasi' who
eke out their living by begging.
3. One of the star witnesses to the occurrence was one Draupadi
(PW 10) according to whom on the date of occurrence, the present
accused and her husband Trinath, the absconding accused, along
with the deceased consumed liquor. Thereafter, in the company of
PW-10 and J. Jamuna (PW-9), they had proceeded to witness to
Gairam Jatra where they again consumed liquor. While they were
returning from the Jatra, near the culvert of village Mohulia,
Trinath is said to have placed a napkin on the neck of the deceased
which both the accused persons pulled from the two ends. As the
deceased fell down, Trinath is said to have cut the throat of the
deceased with the assistance of the Opposite Party-Accused. As a
result, the deceased suffered an instantaneous death.
4. The trial Court, on careful analysis of the evidence of PW-10,
found that it was unreliable as it suffered from material
discrepancies. A significant omission was noticed by the trial Court
while comparing the deposition of PW-10 in the Court with the
statement made by her under Section 164 of Cr PC during course of
investigation. This omission was to the effect that the accused had
caught hold of the feet of the deceased while the co-accused Trinath
cut the throat. There was discrepancy even as regards the point of
death - whether it occurred soon after the napkin was put on the
neck and both ends were pulled by both the accused or it took place
after the co-accused cut the neck of the deceased. Both these were
indeed material discrepancies that threw considerable doubt on
reliability of the deposition of PW-10.
5. This Court has heard the submission of Mr. Janmejaya Katikia,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Since the
entire case of the prosecution hinged on the deposition of PW-10,
the Court has again carefully examined the said evidence. However,
this Court is unable to conclusion different from the one reached by
the trial Court. Indeed, it would be unsafe to proceed to convict the
Opposite Party on the basis of such evidence.
6. Consequently, the Court finds no error has been committed by
the trial Court in acquitting the Opposite Party-Accused. Since no
grounds have been made out for leave to appeal, the present petition
is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S. Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 11:44:27
