Bandhu Oram vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 14395 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          JCRLA No.15 OF 2013

    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 21st August, 2012
    passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC),
    Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.116/55 of 2010.
                                ----

        Bandhu Oram                           ....          Appellant
                                   -versus-

        State of Odisha                       ....         Respondent

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

====================================================== For Appellant - Ms. S. Soren, Advocate.

                For Respondent -         Mr.G.N. Rout,
                                         Additional Standing Counsel
    CORAM:
    MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
    MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING :30.10.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.11.2023

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

has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case

No.116/55 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.876 of 2010

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 2 }}

corresponding to Bisra P.S. Case No.41 of 2010 of the Court of

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

Panposh.

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.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of the said

offence.

2. Prosecution case is that Dugi Oram, Informant (P.W.8)

was living with her son Rabindra Oram. Dugi Oram,

Informant (P.W.8) had married Bandhu Oram (accused) in the

year, 1971. After the birth of Rabindra, this accused Bandhu

left Dugi and married another lady in the year, 1974. So, when

Dugi thereafter married Turia and she (Dugi), Turia, her son

Rabindra resided together. Rabindra was quarreling with

Bandhu. On 25.05.2010 afternoon, Rabindra had gone to

Sarubahal village to witness Yatra and he did not return. Dugi

thereafter got the information that her first husband Bandhu

(accused) had killed Rabindra by shooting arrow at him. Dugi

then lodged a written report before the Inspector-In-Charge

(IIC), Bisra Police Station on 29.05.2010.

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 3 }}

Receiving the said report, the IIC treated the same as the

FIR (Ext.5) and registering the case, directed one Sub-

Inspector (SI) of Police (P.W.16) to take up the investigation,

subsequently; the S.I. of Police (P.W.15) took up the

investigation and completed the same.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.16), having

examined the informant (P.W.8) and other witnesses, visited

the spot, seized the blood stained earth, sample earth, seized

bow and arrow from the possession of the accused, held

inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the

witnesses and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.8). The

wearing apparels of the accused were seized under seizure

list (Ext.2). The dead body of the deceased was the sent for

postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition.

He (P.W.16) further seized the nail clippings, sample blood

of accused. On completion of the investigation, the I.O.

(P.W.15) submitted the Final Form placing this accused to

face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302

of the IPC.

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, on receipt of the Final

Form, took cognizance of said offences and after observing

the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 4 }}

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 sixteen (16) witnesses. As already stated,

the informant-mother of the deceased, who had lodged the

FIR (Ext.5) is P.W.8. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased and

daughter-in-law of the Informant and accused, P.W. 3 is the

uncle of the deceased, who had gone with the deceased for

witnessing the Yatra, P.Ws. 4 and 6 were the police

Constables of Bisra P.S. are the witnesses to the seizure

witness of the wearing apparels of the accused and the

deceased. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the witnesses to the inquest

report, P.Ws.9 and 11 are the witnesses to the seizure of bow

and arrow. P.W.10 is a witness to the seizure of blood stained

earth and sample earth. The Doctor, who had conducted the

post mortem examination over the dead body of the

deceased, is P.W.1 whereas the two I.Os. of the case have

come to the witness box as P.W.15 and 16.

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 12. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.5);

inquest report (Ext.8); the spot map, Ext.12; the post mortem

report (Ext.1).

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 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.1), while conducting the autopsy over the

dead body of the deceased had found one stab injury of 3cm

x 1.5cm x 5cm which bluish margin on the lateral side of the

right knee joint. His evidence is that the death the deceased-

Rabindra Oram was due to that stab injury which 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.8, which finds mention that

the deceased had sustained such injury on his person. With

such evidence on record going unchallenged, we are left with

no option but to hold that the deceased had met a homicidal

death.

8. Ms. S. Soren, 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 her submission on the question of alteration

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

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 6 }}

the IPC with appropriate reduction of sentence. According to

her, 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, she contended that the accused be

visited with the sentence as deemed appropriate for the said

offence.

9. Mr.G.N. Rout, 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

injury having been received by the deceased by the shooting

of the arrow, 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.15 of 2013 {{ 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 16 and

have perused the documents which have been admitted in

evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 12.

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.1, who had conducted

postmortem over the dead body of the deceased that he had

found one stab injury of 3cm x 1.5cm x 5cm with bluish

margin on the lateral side of right knee joint. It is his evidence

that death was on account of said injury.

As per the evidence of P.W.3, he with Rabindra had

gone to witness Yatra and there they found accused standing

near his house holding arrow and axe. When P.W.3 paid his

respect to the accused, he was threatened by the accused and

told not to come with Rabindra, who was his arch-enemy.

This P.W.3 further states that accused having said so, aimed

arrow towards the deceased and some time thereafter he

heard shout of the deceased that arrow had hit him.

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 8 }}

P.W.2, the wife of the deceased states to have seen the

only injury on the thigh of her husband and that has also been

the evidence of P.W.8, the Informant. The deceased had

sustained a bleeding injury on his leg. The incident having

taken place on 29.05.2010 evening, the postmortem

examination has been conducted on 30.05.2010. It appears that

the death is on account of severe bleeding remaining

unchecked on account of stab injury on the right knee joint of

the deceased or on account of septicemia spreading at a rapid

speed. No such evidence is forthcoming to show that there

was any prior planning for the incident. Accepting that the

accused is the author of the injury in order to ascertain the

intention of the accused, the seat of injury as noted here is of

significance. The parties hail from rural background and they

mostly run with high temper showing abnormal and

unexpected behavior in silly matters.

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,

JCRLA No.15 of 2013 {{ 9 }}

the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of ten (10) years.

12. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part with the

above modification of the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated sentence dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rourkela in

Sessions Trial Case No.116/55 of 2010.

(D. Dash), Judge.

                                     Mr. 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: 14-Nov-2023 14:20:42



                               JCRLA No.15 of 2013