Priyanka Jha @ Devi vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 11848 Ori

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           JCRLA No.49 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 the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the
    learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial
    No.49 of 2011.
                                       ----

         Priyanka Jha @ Devi                     ....        Appellant

                                   -versus-

         State of Orissa                         ....       Respondent

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

                For Appellant      -         Mrs.Sonita Biswal,
                                             B.R.Dalai & M. Das
                                             (Advocates)

                For Respondent -             Mr.S.K. Nayak,
                                             Additional Government Advocate
    CORAM:
    MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
    MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

    Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023         :    Date of Judgment:03.10.2023

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

called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of

sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011 arising

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

out of G.R. Case No.1975 of 2010 corresponding to Biramitrapur

P.S. Case No.117 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Panposh.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for

committing the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, she has been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution Case:-

This accused had married one Rajhesh Kumar Jha

(informant-P.W.1) of Village-Patalkand under Biramitrapur

Police Station (P.S.) in the district of Sundergarh. The marriage

between them had taken place on 20.06.2010. On 27.12.2010, it

was around 12.30 p.m., Rajesh (informant-P.W.1) came to his

house after work for taking lunch. The accused then told Rajesh

(P.W.1) that the food had not been prepared. Rajesh, therefore,

asking the accused to feed his mother when the food would be

ready, left the house. He again returned around 2.00 p.m. Then he

found the doors of the house to have been locked from inside and

the Television was on with full sound. He then asked the accused

to open the door. The doors of the house, being opened by the

accused, Rajesh (P.W.1), entering therein decreased the volume of

the TV. He then went to the inner courtyard for having wash.

There he found there his mother, namely, Sita Devi with injuries

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

in a pool of blood. Accused being immediately asked by Rajesh

(P.W.1) gave evasive replies. Going closer to the place where Sita

Devi was lying dead, Rajesh (P.W.1) found that slit on the wind

pipe of his mother and there were also marks of injuries on her

face and other parts of the body.

Rajesh (P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Sub-

Inspector (S.I.) of Police, who was then in-Charge of Inspector-in-

Charge of Biramitra P.S. Receiving the said written report from

P.W.1, the S.I. of Police (P.W.14), treated the same as FIR (Ext.1)

and registering the case, took up investigation.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-

P.W.14) examined the Informant (P.W.1). He visited the spot and

finding people to have gathered there, he examined some of

them. The accused, being there in the house, was arrested.

Inquest was conducted by the I.O. (P.W.14) over the dead body of

the Sita in presence of witnesses and report to that effect (Ext.4)

was prepared. The dead body then sent for post mortem

examination. The I.O. (P.W.14) also seized some incriminating

articles such as bloodstained earth, sample earth, broken bangles

etc. from the backyard of the house of P.W.1 under seizure list

(Ext.8). He also seized the wearing apparels of the accused under

seizure list (Ext.5). It was stated that on 28.12.2010, the accused,

while in police custody, disclosed to have concealed one Paniki

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

(vegetable cutter) and chopper underneath a chair kept in the

house. She further stated that she would give recovery of the

same if taken to that place. The statement of the accused was

recorded under Ext.2 in presence of witnesses (P.W.2) and

another. It was said that the accused, pursuant to that statement,

led the I.O. (P.W.14) and witnesses to her house and gave

recovery of the Paniki and chopper from the underneath a chair,

which was lying there in a small room on the back side. The

Paniki and chopper were seized under seizure list (Ext.3). The

accused was also medically examined. The wearing apparels of

the deceased were seized on production by the police personnel,

who had accompanied the dead body for post mortem

examination. The incriminating articles were also sent for

chemical examination through Court. On completion of the

investigation, submitted the Final Form placing the 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 offence 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

offence against the accused.

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in

total fourteen (14) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the

informant, who is the husband of the accused, had lodged the FIR

(Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 7 & 8 are the neighbors. Witnesses to

the inquest are P.Ws.4 & 6. P.Ws.9 & 11 are the witnesses to the

seizure of the incriminating articles. The Doctor who had

conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Sita Devi is P.W.10

whereas the Doctor, who had medically examined the accused is

P.Ws.12. The I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box as

P.W.14.

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 13.

Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.4);

and the post mortem report. The disclosure statement of the

accused had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.2 and the

Chemical Examiner's report is Ext.13.

6. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial. It was

specifically stated that she was being ignored and ill-treated by

her husband (P.W.1) and on that day, her husband and mother-

in-law had assaulted her and when her mother-in-law wanted to

attack her by means of a knife, in the scuffle, she fell down and

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

her left leg hit the deceased and the knife somehow stuck at her

neck.

7. The Trial Court, on examination of the evidence and their

scrutiny, has found that the prosecution has established the

charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Mr.M.Das, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused),

without dispute the nature of death of Sita Devi to be homicidal,

submitted that the prosecution evidence is not enough to

conclude that the chain of events are complete in every respect to

arrive at an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused, who is

the perpetrator of the crime by ruling out all the hypothesis other

than the guilt of the accused. He submitted that the Trial Court

ought not to have placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.1 to

conclude that at the relevant time, when he found the deceased

lying dead in the inner court yard of the house, it was only the

accused who was present in the house, which was closed form

inside, which she had opened. He further submitted that such

evidence of P.W.1 appears to be highly improbable when it is said

that the accused, having committed the murder, would very

much remain present to be arrested in connection with the case.

Placing the deposition of P.W.1 and his FIR version, in view of

some variance as regards the stated previous visit by P.W.1 and

the subsequent visit, he contended that the prosecution case is

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

doubtful. He, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are

liable to be set aside.

9. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate

for the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of

guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court.

He submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, being wholly reliable to

the extent that when he returned home, he found the doors of the

house to have been bolted from inside and being called out when

the accused opened the door, soon thereafter he saw his mother

lying dead in the court yard, the rest of the things as to how the

deceased sustained injuries and met her death being within the

special knowledge of this accused since the given explanations

appear to be totally false, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the

accused for having committed the murder of her mother-in-law

Sita Devi.

10. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully

gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have

also travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined

from the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to 14) and have perused

the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13.

11. As has been stated by the Doctor, who had conducted the

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he had noticed in

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

total twelve (12) injuries on the body of the deceased and out of

those, nine (9) were cut injuries. It is his evidence that all such

injuries were ante mortem in nature. He has further stated that

the cut injuries on the neck had proved fatal and the death was

on account of shock as a result of blood loss due to the injury to

the major vessel like carotid. All such findings have been

recorded in his report (Ext.6). He has clearly denied that such

injuries can appear if a person would defend himself/herself in a

scuffle with the weapon in the hands of the attacker. With such

evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10) coupled with the evidence of the

I.O. (P.W.14), who had noticed the injuries seen on the deceased

in his report (Ext.4) and that of P.W.1 and others we are left with

no option but to conclude that death of Sita Devi was homicidal.

12. The prosecution case is not based on direct evidence. In

order to bring home charge against the accused, the prosecution

has proved certain circumstances by examining P.W.1 and others.

13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, we find him to have

stated that he had once come to the house during noon hours and

as then the accused told him that food was not ready, he went

away without taking the lunch and while going away, directed

the accused to feed his mother once the meal was ready. It is his

further evidence that around 2.00 p.m., he returned for lunch and

when eh arrived, he knocked at the doors vigorously when the

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

television set was running in full volume. He has further stated

that knocks were not responded and, therefore, he turned around

the house and by going to the backside, called his wife (accused)

to open the door. It has been further stated that thereafter when

he came to front door, the accused opened the door and he

immediately went and decrees the sound of the television. It has

been further stated by P.W.1 that when he went to the inner

courtyard to have a wash, he found his mother lying on the

ground in a pool of blood and then the accused being asked

about it, she remained silent and thereafter disclosed to have

killed his mother-in-law. It is also his evidence that he had seen

the wind pipe of her mother to have been completely cut. The

witness, having been cross-examined, has stated that his wife and

mother (deceased), were having separate hearth and they were

preparing their food separately. He has denied the suggestion

thrown during cross-examination that when he and his mother

(deceased) were trying to kill the accused by means of a knife and

that during scuffle, the knife somehow touched the throat of her

mother in causing such injury. Although such a suggestion has

been given, no such supporting material appears to have been

elicited from the lips of P.W.1 even remotely suggestive of such

happening in the house. This P.W.1 has thereafter lodged the FIR

(Ext.1). The FIR narration reveals that when this P.W.1 arrived in

the house around 2.00 p.m, he knocked the door and as nobody

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

- 10 -

opened, the went towards backside and found his wife (accused)

standing on the backside door and then she opened the door

giving an entry to the accused to the house. It is also stated that

thereafter he found his mother (deceased) lying therein in a pool

of blood with her throat being cut and when asked the accused,

she gave evasive answer and, therefore, he apprehended that his

mother had been murdered by this accused. Thus, the evidence of

P.W.1 is consistent with the FIR version that when he arrived at

home, the doors were closed and finally the accused when

opened the door after some time, he saw his mother (deceased)

lying in a pool of blood on the backside of the house. The rest

part of his evidence that the accused confessed to have committed

the murder of the deceased is, however, not stated in the FIR and,

therefore, the extra judicial confession of the accused as deposed

to by P.W.1 in the Trial appears to be an introduction. Be that as it

may, the evidence of P.W.1 is acceptable on the score that at the

relevant time when he detected the dead body of his mother, the

accused alone was in the house. The explanation given by the

accused is that there was an attempt to his life by the accused and

the deceased and in that scuffle, the deceased has received such

injuries is not at all acceptable when the evidence of the Doctor

(P.W.12) is gone through and the conduct of the accused is

viewed. It has not only been stated by P.W.1 that the accused and

the deceased were not pulling on well, but the same has been the

JCRLA No.49 of 2012

- 11 -

evidence of P.W.7 that the accused and her mother-in-law were

not in good terms. Thus, here we find the prosecution to have

established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was very

much in the house when the deceased was found lying dead with

cut injury on her throat and several other injuries on her body.

The explanation, as has been provided by the accused, is found to

be unacceptable and, therefore, basing on such evidence, we are

of the view that the finding of guilt against the accused, as has

been returned by the Trial Court for having murdered her

mother-in-law (Sita Devi) has to sustain.

14. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of

conviction and the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions

Trial No.49 of 2011 are hereby confirmed.

Since the Appellant (accused), namely, Priyanka Jha @ Devi

is on bail, she is directed to surrender before the Trial Court

forthwith to serve out the sentence.

(D. Dash) Judge A.C.Behera, J. I Agree.

(A.C.Behera) Judge

SignatureBasu Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Oct-2023 10:34:26

JCRLA No.49 of 2012