Orissa High Court
Satrughana Sahu @ Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 19 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA NO.247 OF 2019
In the matter of an Appeal under section-374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and from the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18th March, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Angul in C.T.(S) Case No.150 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.803
of 2015 corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No.294 of 2015 of the Court
of learned S.D.J.M., Angul.
----
Satrughana Sahu @ Sahoo .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
=================================================
For Appellant - Mr. R.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. Sitikant Mishra,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING :04.05.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19.05.06.2023
D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) Case No.150 of 2015 arising out of
G.R. Case No.803 of 2015 corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No.294 of
CRLA NO.247 OF 2019
{{ 2 }}
2015 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(S.D.J.M.), Angul.
The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of
offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the
IPC') and accordingly, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year.
2. Prosecution case is that one Chaitanya Behera was in love with the
niece of the accused. The accused having come to know about this fact
was terribly annoyed and he was in search of the opportunity to take
revenge upon the Chaitanya. On 15.06.2015 around 2 pm, accused came
to the house of Dayanidhi Behera (P.W.9) with the son of Chaitanya
holding Katuri and searched for Chaitanya (P.W.12). When Dayanidhi
(P.W.9) came to know of this fact, he informed the matter to his son-in-
law, Chandra Mahalik of village Chhendipada. Getting such information
from Dayanidhi (P.W.9), Chandra Mahalik proceeded to village
Baluakata on a motorcycle with one Sudhanya (P.W.14) in a motorcycle.
Sudhanya (P.W.14) drove the motorcycle and Chandra Mahalik
(deceased) went as the pillion rider. When they reached Bandhasahi of
village Baluakata, accused detained them on the way and suddenly, dealt
the blow on the backside neck of Chandra, causing bleeding injury. He
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 3 }}
then dealt successive blows to Chandra on his back and neck by that Kati
(Katuri). When Sudhanya (P.W.14) raised protest, accused rushed
towards him to assault and therefore, out of fear, he ran away towards
village leaving the motorcycle there at the spot. Hearing the hullah,
father-in-law of Chandra and other family members rushed to the spot,
Sudhanya (P.W.14) informed the matter to his wife from the mobile
phone of a villager. He also requested his wife to inform about the
incident to the family members of Chandra Mahalik (deceased).
Pintu Mahalik (P.W.15), who happens to be the son of Chandra
Mahalik (Deceased) getting information regarding the incident,
proceeded to the spot and noticed his father Chandra lying at the spot
with bleeding injuries on his neck and back. Seeing this, Saroj Mahalik
(P.W.10) gave him water to drink. On being asked, Chandra then
disclosed that accused Satrughana dealt Katuri blows on him, causing
those injuries. Chandra was immediately shifted to Nursing Home for
treatment, but he was found dead by then. Chandra then was also taken to
the nearest Government Hospital where the death was confirmed.
Pintu Mahalik (P.W.14) then lodged a written report before the
Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Angul P.S. The IIC having received above
report, treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.5) and registered the case. He
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 4 }}
however directed the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police attached to the P.S. to
take up investigation.
3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.21) in course of investigation
examined the Informant and other witnesses. He visited the spot and
prepared the spot map, Ext.13. He also seized the blood stained and
sample earth from the spot under the seizure list, Ext.3. He too held
inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report, Ext.
2 and the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination by
issuing necessary requisition. Wearing apparels of the deceased were
seized on production under the seizure list, Ext.4. The accused was
apprehended and his statement was recorded. Pursuant to the said
statement, he led the police and other witnesses for giving recovery of
that blood stained Katuri from the place where it had been kept, which
was then seized under Ext.11/2. The motorcycle which was lying at the
spot was seized and giveen in zima of P.W.15 (Pintu Mahalik). The
incriminating articles were also sent for chemical examination to State
Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgah, Bhubaneswar through Court and
the report thereof, Ext. 15 was obtained. On completion of investigation,
the I.O. (P.W.21) submitted Final Form, placing the accused to face the
Trial for commission of the offence under section-302 of the IPC.
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 5 }}
4. Learned S.D.J.M., Angul having received the Final Form as above,
took cognizance of the above noted offence and after observing the
formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the
Trial commenced by framing charge against the accused for the said
offence.
5. In the Trial, the prosecution examined in total 21 witnesses. Out of
them, P.W.3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are the post occurrence witnesses and P.W.2
who is the cousin brother of the Informant, Pintu Mahalik has been
examined as P.W.15. Father-in-law of the deceased has been examined as
P.W.9, P.W.11 is the sister of the deceased and P.W.12 is the maternal
uncle of Informant (P.W.15). The Doctor who had conducted autopsy
over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.16. The witnesses to the
statement of the accused while in police custody are P.Ws.19 and 20. The
I.O. has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.21. Besides leading
the evidence by examining above witnesses, the prosecution has proved
several documents, which have been admitted in evidence has marked as
Exts.1 to 16. Out those as already stated, the F.I.R. is Ext. 5 whereas the
inquest report is Ext.2. Postmortem report obtained after examination of
the dead body of the deceased is Ext.8. Statement of the accused said to
have been made before the police after his arrest has been proved as
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 6 }}
Ext.10/2 and the chemical examination report is Ext.16; whereas the spot
map has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.13.
The defence plea is that of complete denial and false implication.
The accused has however not tendered any evidence in support of his
defence.
6. The Trial Court upon examination of evidence of the Doctor who
had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased P.W.16, his
report Ext.8 and the evidence of P.W.21, who had held inquest over the
dead body as well as the evidence of other witnesses has arrived at a
conclusion that the death of Chandra Mahalik was homicidal in nature. In
fact, this aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial
Court and that has also been the situation before us.
It is the evidence of P.W.16 that he during postmortem
examination had noticed two factures i.e. the fracture of right clavicle
with incised would measuring 4cm X 2cm over the shoulder and fracture
of left occipital bone at 3 cm behind the mastoid process. Besides above,
he had noted three incised wounds; near left ear pinnae, left cheek at
parotid region and right cheek below his ear lope. He too has stated to
have seen that there was avulsion of brain materials at occipital region.
As per his evidence, the death was due to respiratory arrest resulting from
damage to vital brain centers and haemorrhage. He has specifically
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 7 }}
deposed that all the above injuries are antemortem in nature and the death
was homicidal. All those what P.W.16 has stated during Trial finds
mention in his report, Ext.8. Besides the above, the I.O. (P.W.21) has
also stated to have found those injuries and noted those in the inquest
report, Ext.2. The other witnesses have stated to have seen the deceased
sustaining those injuries on different part of his body. With those
evidence going unchallenged, we find absolutely no difficulty in arriving
at a conclusion that Chandra had met homicidal death.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the
Trial Court without proper analysis of the evidence of P.W.14 and testing
the same with the other circumstances which have emerged from the
evidence of other witnesses has erred in relying upon his evidence. He
further submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 on critical examination
ought not to have been held to be providing any support to the evidence
of P.W.14. According to him, the evidence of P.W.11 ought not to have
also been relied upon by the Trial Court since her version is not in
consonance with the version of P.Ws. 9 and 11. He further submitted that
the evidence of the prosecution that deceased had disclosed before them
attributing authorship of the injuries received by him to the accused
ought not to have been accepted by the Trial Court. He submitted that the
Trial Court has not properly tested evidence of all these above witnesses
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 8 }}
in the touchstone of the reliability and acceptability; keeping in view the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as have emerged during
trial.
8. Learned Counsel for the State (Respondent) submitted all in favour
of the finding returned by the Trial Court holding accused to be guilty for
commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC. He submitted that
in the absence of any such materials emerging from the evidence of
P.Ws. 9, 11 and 14 so as to doubt their version in the direction of
showing the complicity of the accused, the Trial Court has rightly held
those witnesses to be reliable and their version as wholly trustworthy. He
further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the
deceased had disclosed before them that he had been attacked by the
accused in causing the bleeding injuries on his person being free from
any such infirmity or improbability have been rightly accepted in
fastening the guilt upon the accused.
9. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the
impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. We have
also gone through the depositions of the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 21
examined from the side of the prosecution and have perused the
documents admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 16.
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 9 }}
10. As per the case of the prosecution on the relevant date and time,
the deceased had been to village Baluakata in the motorcycle driven by
P.W.14; the deceased was the pillion rider. It has been stated by P.W.14
that both went to village Baluakata on his motorcycle and on their arrival
near the spot i.e. village road of Bandhasahi of Baluakata, the accused
came from behind holding Katuri and suddenly gave the blow on the
backside neck of Chandra, causing bleeding injuries. His version is that
when hearing the cry of Chandra, he stopped the motorcycle and turned
back, he saw accused dealing successive blows on Chandra near his back
by that Katuri. The Doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead
body of P.W.16 has also stated to have noted such injuries near the
backside of the neck of the deceased and his evidence is that injuries are
possible of being caused by Katuri which had the occasion to examine as
per the request of the I.O. (P.W.21). He has further deposed that having
seen the above, when he raised protest, accused went towards him to
assault and out of fear; he started running leaving the motorcycle there at
the spot. He has further stated that when he raised hullah, the father-in-
law of Chandra and other family members rushed to the spot. This father-
in-law of the deceased is P.W.9. It is his further evidence that the house
of the father-in-law of the deceased is just near the spot. He has also
stated that the father-in-law and his the family members hearing the shout
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 10 }}
had came out of their house. He has deposed that when father-in-law
arrived at the spot, the assault was going on.
P.W.9, who is the father-in-law of the deceased has stated to have
seen the accused assaulting his son-in-law (deceased) by remaining at a
distance of 20 cubits. He has further stated that because of the blows by
that sharp cutting weapon, his son-in-law (Chandra-deceased) sustained
bleeding injuries on his neck and back. Despite cross-examination, we
find that the evidence of all these witnesses has to have seen the accused
assaulting the deceased has not been shaken in any manner nor any such
materials have been elicited to create doubt in mind as to the presence of
these witnesses near the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
It has been deposed by P.W.3 that when he had been to the spot
and asked the deceased as to what was done to him and how he received
the injuries, he told that accused had dealt Katuri blows with force on his
back and neck, causing severe bleeding injuries. It is his clear evidence
that at the relevant time, the accused was in sense. Although he has stated
that accused Chandra at the time of his arrival was not sense, his version
then has been that when he sprinkled water over his face and gave some
water to drink, he regained his sense after five minutes. It is also his
evidence that on his asking, deceased narrated the manner of assault on
him and told about the role played by this accused. This has also been the
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 11 }}
evidence of P.W.6 that being asked by P.W.3, in their presence, the
deceased disclosed that accused Satrughana had dealt Katuri blows on
him. He has also stated that after villagers sprinkled water, the deceased
was regained sense and told about the role of the accused in assaulting
him. P.W.10 has further stated that grandfather of Pintu (P.W.9) and his
aunt Rashmita were near the injured when he came. It is stated that
deceased was then lying and crying in pain and on being asked, replied
that "Satrughana Hani Dela" (Satrughana dealt the blows). This part of
the evidence of the witnesses having no way been impeached, we find no
reason to keep those beyond the arena of consideration.
P.W.15 has also stated that regarding the declaration made by the
deceased before them that accused Satrughana had dealt the Katuri blows
on him. During cross-examination, he had gone to explain that though at
the initial stage, the deceased was not in a position to speak being not in
sense, yet thereafter he regained his sense after water was given to him to
drink. We find that the evidence of all these witnesses are free from any
such infirmity nor there surfaces any improbability therein. The
depositions of all these witnesses being read together, we also find that
there is no such conflict inter se in so far as happening of the incident is
concerned and the role assigned therein to the accused. The evidence of
P.W.16 too provides full corroboration to the evidence of all these
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
{{ 12 }}
witnesses and under the circumstances merely because they are the
relations of the deceased we are of the view that those cannot be termed
to be the witnesses interested in successful culmination of the trial as
against this accused by screening the real culprit. As all those obtained
evidence have in no way been impeached and when the credibility of all
these witnesses have firmly stood, we find no difficulty in accepting their
evidence as trustworthy and reliable. We are therefore; of the view the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in so far as the
complicity of the accused is concerned in intentionally causing the death
of the deceased. The Trial Court, therefore, has not committed any error
in holding the accused guilty for the offence under section-302 of the
IPC. Consequentially, we hereby confirm the judgment.
11. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence impugned in this Appeal stand
confirmed.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree.
(Dr.S.K.Panigrahi),
Judge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: NARAYAN HO
Narayan Assistant
Designation: Personal
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 19-May-2023 17:53:01
CRLA NO. 247 OF 2019
