Orissa High Court
Janu Muduli vs State Of Odisha on 13 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.08 OF 2015
From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2014
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal
Trial No.13 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.593 of 2011
corresponding to Dasmantpur P.S. Case No.64 of 2011 of the Court of
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput.
----
Janu Muduli
.... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
==================================================
For Appellant - Mr. C.R. Sahu,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. S.K. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :02.11.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.11.2023
D.Dash, J. The Appellant from inside the jail has filed this Appeal in
questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.03.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in
Criminal Trial No.13 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.593 of 2011
corresponding to Dasmantpur P.S. Case No.64 of 2011 of the Court of
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Koraput.
JCRLA NO.08 OF 2015
{{ 2 }}
By the same, 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 has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution Case:-
Rama Jani of village Baragachha under Dasmantpur Police Station
of the District of Koraput had three other brothers and Rabi Jani is the
eldest of them whose son is Bahaspati Jani. In or about the year 2003-04,
Bahaspati had married the daughter of the accused. The accused had no
consent for the same, so it was said that after marriage, the accused was
bearing grudge against the family members of Rama Jani and had declared
to kill any of the members of the family.
On 24.10.2011, around 4 pm, accused holding Tangia, came near
the cowshed of Rama Jani and asked the wife of Rama to give him some
curd. The wife of Rama namely, Dipa Jani (P.W.4) acceding to the request
of the accused gave him some curd. Having taken the curd, the accused
threw Parbati, the four year old daughter of Rama into a cow-dung pit.
The accused then told Rama to come to his house to take liquor and then
having caught hold on his hand and dragged him to his house. The
accused and Rama moved forward. Apprehending some danger, wife of
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 3 }}
Rama namely, Dipa (P.W.4) followed them. Rama walked ahead of her.
Accused was just behind Rama in between Rama and his wife Dipa
(P.W.4). It was said that when accused-Janu and Rama arrived near the
Tamarind and mango trees standing on the way, all of a sudden accused
gave tangia blow on the left side of the head of Rama, resulting his fall on
the ground. Seeing the same, the wife of the accused (P.W.4) being afraid
of, returned towards her cowshed. The accused also left the spot and went
towards the hill area. Dipa (P.W.4), the wife of Rama went to the village
and informed the incident to the villagers. Sometime thereafter, she
(P.W.4) with the villagers came to the spot and found her husband (Rama
Jani) lying dead with bleeding injuries, when one Chandu Muduli (P.W.5)
was standing by his side. Guru Jani (P.W.3), the younger brother of Rama
(deceased) then lodged a written report (FIR), Ext.1 with the Inspector In-
Charge (IIC) of Dasmantpur Police Station. On receipt of the said report,
the IIC, registered the case and took up investigation.
In course of investigation, the IIC, Dasmantpur P.S. (P.W.16)
visited the spot, examined the Informant (P.W.3) and other witnesses. He
prepared the spot map (Ext.8) and also held inquest over the dead body
of the deceased-Rama Jani and prepared report, Ext.2. Requisition was
issued for holding the postmortem examination over the dead body of the
deceased. The IIC (P.W.16) further seized the sample earth and blood
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 4 }}
stained earth from the spot by preparing a seizure list. On the same day,
he seized the tangia and the T-shirt of the accused and seized the wearing
apparels of the deceased after the postmortem examination under a
seizure lists. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.16)
submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the Trial for
commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
3. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput 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.
4. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of P.W.15, the
Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead
body of the deceased and his report Ext.6 and other evidence has arrived
at a conclusion that the nature of death of Rama Jani was homicidal. In
fact this aspect was not under challenge from the side of the defence and
that is also the situation before us. The Trial Court then upon analyzing
the evidence of P.W.4 and other post occurrence witnesses has held the
prosecution to have established the charge against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 5 }}
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the
entire case of the prosecution is based on the solitary testimony of P.W.4,
who states to have seen the occurrence where the accused dealt tangia
blow on the head of the deceased. He however, submits that said evidence
of P.W.4 who is highly interested witness do not stand to the judicial
scrutiny and the Trial Court having not properly analyzed her evidence in
the touchstone of other circumstances emanating from the evidence of
other witnesses has committed the error in holding accused to be author of
the injury on the head of the deceased, resulting his death. He further
submitted that the Trial Court has not taken into account the descripancy
surfacing in the evidence of P.W.4 and other witnesses, who state to have
reached at the spot sometime after the incident. According to him, the
evidence of P.W.4 is inherently improbable and it is highly doubtful that
she had followed the accused and the deceased. He, therefore, submitted
that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this
Appeal cannot be sustained.
6. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the
evidence of P.W.4 is wholly believable. According to him, she is the most
natural witness as being the wife of the deceased having all the reason to
suspect the accused who was carrying the grudge, apprehending danger
had followed her husband when he moved with the accused. Inviting our
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 6 }}
attention to the deposition of the P.W.4, he placed as to how her evidence
is trustworthy. According to him, the evidence of P.W.4 coupled with the
evidence of other post occurrence witnesses, who arrived at the place
being called by P.W.4; receiving further corroboration from the evidence
of the Doctor (P.W.15), who had conducted postmortem examination over
the dead body of the deceased, the Trial Court has rightly fastened the
guilt upon the accused.
7. 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
P.Ws.1 to 16 and have perused the documents which have been admitted
in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 11.
8. The Doctor (P.W.15) conducting postmortem over the dead body of
the deceased being examined has stated to have noticed one lacerated
injury of the size of 7cm x 1cm x 1cm over the scalp and skull running
anterior and posteriorly about 3cm above left ear. He had also noticed one
bruise of scalp of breadth 1cm of the depth 0.5cm running around said
lacerated injury with linear skull fracture which was depressed in nature of
length 5cm running below the scalp injury. It is stated that some portions
of the fractured bone had entered into the brain cavity. As per his evidence
duramater teared out, membrances congested and there was lacerated
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 7 }}
injury of brain tissue underlying the fracture of size 5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm
with surrounding brain contusion. It has been stated by him that the death
was on account of head injury and the bone laceration leading to
respiratory paralysis followed by circulatory failure and brain death. His
evidence go to show that the injuries were antemortem in nature and he
has stated the death to be homicidal. The findings have been noted in the
postmortem report (Ext.6) which we find to have not been shaken. It is his
evidence that such injury on the brain was possible by a tangia (M.O.-I)
which he had examined during investigation at the request of the I.O.
(P.W.16). With such evidence on record, we also find the evidence of
P.W.16, the I.O., who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased
and prepared his report, Ext.2, which finds mention of such head injury as
well as the evidence of other witnesses who had seen the deceased lying
dead with the head injury. All these above evidence on record, remaining
unchallenged, we are left with no option but to hold that Rama's death
was homicidal on account of the injury on the head caused by weapon
like tangia.
9. Having said as above, we are first of all called upon to examine the
evidence of P.W.4, who is none other than the wife of the deceased. She
has stated that when accused and deceased went to the house of the
accused, she accompanied them. As per her evidence, accused was behind
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 8 }}
the deceased and she was following the accused, who was then holding an
axe. She has stated that on the way near the Tamarind tree, the accused
dealt an axe blow on the left side head of her husband which resulted his
fall and she immediately out of fear ran to call the villagers and thereafter
returned to the spot, when she found her husband lying dead. The witness
(P.W.4) has identified the axe held by the accused, which has been
marked as M.O.-I. She has denied the suggestion to have not seen the
accused assaulting her husband by an axe. During cross-examination, we
find no such attempt even to have been made to discredit her version with
regard to the role of the accused that she stated in causing the injury on the
head of her husband. The evidence of this witness finds corroboration
from the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.15, who having examined this
M.O.-I has stated that the injury that he noticed on the head of the
deceased was possible by the same.
10. It has been stated by PW.1, that being told by the P.W.4, when he
had been to the spot, he found deceased lying dead with bleeding injury
on his head. P.W.2 another villager has stated in the same vein. Evidence
of P.W.3 reveals that when he was returning from Dangara land on the
way near the Tamarind tree, he saw the accused assaulting the deceased
by means of tangia on the left side of his head of the deceased and when
he reached the spot, the accused fled towards the jungle. His response is of
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 9 }}
quite significance to note that he has chased the accused and had failed to
apprehend; he is none other than the younger brother of the deceased.
However, his evidence is not acceptable to the extent that he has seen the
accused dealing the blow on the head of the deceased by means of tangia
for the reason that the same appears to be an improvement as he had not
so stated before the I.O. (P.W.16) in course of investigation. The witness
being confronted with the same, although has stated in the affirmative, the
evidence of I.O. (P.W.16) stands that such was not the version of P.W.3
before him. Therefore, the prosecution evidence coming from the lips of
P.W.3 even though is not believable, the evidence of the wife of the
deceased-P.W.4 firmly holds the ground and that receive corroboration
from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Similar state of affairs arise in the
evidence of P.W.5, when he says to have seen the accused dealing the
blows on the head of the deceased that was not her version before the I.O.
(P.W.16). Thus, here we find that even eschewing the evidence of the
P.Ws. 3 and 5 from consideration, evidence of P.W.4 being corroborated
by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence through
P.W.15 as well as his report who firmly stand and the same according to
us is enough to conclude that the prosecution has established the charge
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The severity of the blow
when seen from the evidence of P.W.15 and the weapon used being taken
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
{{ 10 }}
into account with the manner in which the accused dealt the blow; we find
all the reason and justification to uphold the conviction of the accused for
commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC.
Thus, We find that the evidence as discussed are sufficient and
wholly acceptable so as to hold the accused guilty for commission of
offence under section-302 of the IPC.
11. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence under challenge in this
Appeal must receive the seal of confirmation. Accordingly, we confirm
the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been
impugned in this Appeal.
12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(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: 14-Nov-2023 14:20:42
JCRLA NO. 08 OF 2015
