Anjan Barik vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 13489 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          JCRLA No.74 OF 2012

    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 17th November, 2011
    passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC),
    Bargarh in C.T. Case No.45/12 of 2011.
                                ----

        Anjan Barik                           ....        Appellant
                                   -versus-

        State of Odisha                       ....      Respondent

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

====================================================== For Appellant - Mr.S.K.Routray, Advocate as Amicus Curiae

For Respondent - Mr.P.K.Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING :10.10.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01.11.2023

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail,

has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 17th November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bargarh in C.T. Case No.45/12 of 2011

arising out of G.R. Case No.69 of 2010 corresponding to

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 2 }}

Barpali P.S. Case No.68(1) of 2011 of the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C), Barpali.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted

for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has

been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine

of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) in default to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months for commission of

the said offence.

2. Prosecution Case:-

The accused namely, Anjan Barik used to quarrel with

his parents and assault them demanding money as he was a

habitual drunkard and liquor addic. The accused was residing

separately from his parents and other family members in a

house situated in their village. On 01.07.2010 around 7.00 am

Ramesh (deceased) gone to the house of accused to serve him

breakfast. There again altercation of words between them took

place and it is alleged that the accused assaulted his father,

causing bleeding injuries on his head, forehead and neck and

then pushed him violently resulting his fall in the cement floor

of the verandah of the house. The mother of the accused, who

is the wife of the deceased (P.W.2) immediately arrived at the

spot and saw accused leaving the place where her husband

(Ramesh) was lying unconscious with bleeding injuries on his

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 3 }}

head and other parts. Laxmi Barik (P.W.2), the wife of the

deceased then cried for help. So her daughter-Bina Barik

(P.W.3) and others arrived at the spot. The incident was

immediately informed to Gobinda Barik (Informant-P.W.1),

who happens to be the nephew of Laxmi (P.W.2), who then

reported the matter in writing to the Inspector-in-Charge

(I.I.C) of Barpali P.S.

Receiving the said report, the IIC (P.W.12) treated the

same as the FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, directed one

Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Police to take up the

investigation. On 9.7.2010, the IIC (P.W.12), getting

information that the injured Ramesh Barik was dead, took up

the investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.12), having

examined the informant (P.W.1) visited the spot, held inquest

over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the

witnesses and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.2). The

wearing apparels of the deceased were seized under seizure

list (Ext.12). The dead body of the deceased was the sent for

postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition.

The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical

examination through Court. On completion of the

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

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 4 }}

placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the

offence under section 302 of the IPC.

4. Learned J.M.F.C., Barpali, on receipt of the Final Form,

took cognizance of said offences 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 offences against this accused.

5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has

examined in total twelve (12) witnesses. As already stated,

the informant, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.1.

P.Ws.2 & 3 are the wife and daughter of the deceased

respectively. P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 9. 10 & 11 are the post occurrence

witnesses and out of them P.Ws.4, 5 & 6 are also witnesses to

the seizure. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.7

whereas P.W.8 is the Doctor, who had initially examined the

deceased. The I.O. of the case has come to the witness box 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 14. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.1);

inquest report (Ext.2); the post mortem report (Ext.7).

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 5 }}

6. The accused person, in support his plea of denial and

false implication has, however, not tendered any evidence

despite opportunity.

7. The Trial Court, having gone through the evidence of

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

dead body of the deceased and had found lacerated wound

on the occipital area, bruise on left side of head and neck,

bruise on fronto temporal parietal area, haematoma of fronto

parietal area on right side of brain, cisternal haematoma of

brain right side, fracture of hyoid bone left part as also the

evidence of other witnesses, has arrived at a conclusion that

the death of Ramesh was homicidal in nature.

In addition to that, we find the evidence of P.W.12,

who is the I.O, who had held inquest over the dead body of

the deceased and prepared Ext.2, which finds mention that

the deceased had sustained such injuries on his person. With

such evidence on record, we are left with no option but to

hold that the deceased had met a homicidal death.

8. Mr.S.K.Routray, learned counsel for the Appellant

(accused), from very beginning, instead of attacking the

finding as to the authorship of the injuries upon the deceased

attributed to the accused as has been recorded by the Trial

Court, confined the submission on the question of alteration

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 6 }}

of the conviction of the accused to one under section 304-I of

the IPC with appropriate reduction of sentence. According to

him, viewing the happenings in the incident as also the

subsequent events, the relationship etc. when are kept in

view with the fact that the parties hail from remote rural

back ground whose tamper usually run high and behavior

for silly reasons, often becomes abnormal, the Trial Court

ought not to have convicted the accused for commission of

offence under section 302 of the IPC. He, therefore, urged for

alteration of conviction for commission of offence under

Section 302 of the IPC to offence under Section 304-I of the

IPC and accordingly, he contended that the accused be

visited with the sentence as deemed appropriate for the said

offence.

9. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel

submitted all in favour of the finding returned by the Trial

Court that the accused is liable for commission of the offence

under Section 302 of the I.P.C. He further submitted that the

injuries having been received by the deceased on the head,

forehead and neck of the deceased, which has proved fatal in

causing the death, the Trial Court did commit no mistake in

holding the accused guilty for commission of the offence

under section 302 of the IPC.

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 7 }}

10. 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 12 and

have perused the documents which have been admitted in

evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 14.

11. Proceeding to address the submission of learned

Counsel for the Appellant as regards the alteration of

conviction to one under section-304-I of the IPC, and

appropriate reduction of the sentence, we find from the

evidence of the Doctor, P.W.7, who had conducted

postmortem over the dead body of the deceased that he had

noticed heamatoma on parietal area on the brain and cisternal

heamatoma right side, heamatoma of fronto temporo parietal

area. As per the evidence, the death was on account of the

injujries to the vital organ like brain. The Doctor, who had

initially examined Ramesh (deceased) is P.W.8. He states to

have noticed one lacerated injury on 1"x1"X1/2" in the

occipital area and one bruise over tempro parietal area both to

be grievous in nature with another bruise on the left side of

the head and neck which were simple in nature. Ramesh

having taken to Barpali CHC immediately after the occurrence

on 01.07.2010, as advised, he was shifted to the VSS Medical

College and Hospital, Burla. The death has taken place on

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 8 }}

08/09.07.2010, i.e., after a week while undergoing treatment. It

is stated by more of the prosecution witnesses that the

deceased was assaulted by means of any weapon and it is not

stated even by P.W.2, the wife of the deceased that she had

seen the accused assaulting the deceased. She has also stated

that her son (accused) was a habitual drunkard and was also

taking ganja. It has been the evidence of the I.O. P.W.12 that

there was no mark of tussle or violence at the spot. The parties

hail from rural background, mostly having high temper

showing abnormal and unexpected behavior in silly matters.

The evidence on record being cumulatively viewed rather

probabilises the case that the deceased ultimately having

fallen on the ground, said injuries on head had been

sustained.

Having carefully considered all above circumstances

emerging from the evidence, we are of the considered view

that the offence can be properly categorized as one punishable

under section 304-I of IPC. Therefore, we are inclined to

modify the impugned judgment of the Trial Court in

convicting this accused for the offence punishable under

section-302 of IPC and instead the accused is convicted for the

offence punishable under section 304-I of IPC. Accordingly,

the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of ten (10) years.

JCRLA No.74 of 2012 {{ 9 }}

12. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part with the

above modification of the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated sentence dated 17th November, 2011 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bargarh in C.T.

Case No.45/12 of 2011.

(D. Dash), Judge.

G. Satapathy, J. I Agree.

(G. Satapathy), Judge.

Narayan

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Nov-2023 19:10:31

JCRLA No.74 of 2012