Orissa High Court
Karunakar Tandia vs State Of Odisha on 3 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.458 of 2012
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 23rd July, 2012 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in Sessions Trial Case
No.21 of 2010.
Karunakar Tandia .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.D.K.Sahoo,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr.G.N.Rout,
Additional Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :14.09.2023 :: Date of Judgment : 03.10.2023
A.C. Behera, J. The appellant, by preferring this Appeal, has called in
question to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23 rd
July, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda
in Sessions Trial Case No.21 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.26 of
CRLA No.458 of 2012
{{ 2 }}
2010 corresponding to Kuchinda P.S. Case No.08 of 2010 of the Court
of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Kuchinda.
The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of
offence U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). For
the above conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) in default to
undergo R.I. for one year for the offence U/s 302 of the IPC.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 16.01.2010 night, while Dayanidhi Kua of village Purunapali
under the jurisdiction of Kuchinda Police Station in the District of
Sambalpur was sleeping in his house, it was around 1 a.m., Somanath
Magar and Hara Kua came to his house and told that, accused
Karunakar Tandia was assaulting his mother Sukanti Kua. So,
Dayanidhi Kua came to the house of the Sukanti Kua with Somnath
Magar and Hara Kua and found that, the accused was forcibly dragging
Sukanti and on seeing them, the accused left the Sukanti in a senseless
condition with injuries on her person and fled away. Then, they along
with two brothers of the deceased i.e. Mukteswar and Somonath brought
the injured Sukanti to her house and when they were about to shift her to
the hospital, she breathed her last at about 8:30 a.m. Thereafter,
Dayanidhi Kua lodged F.I.R.(Ext.1) before the IIC, Kuchinda Police
Station to the above effect. Basing upon such F.I.R.(Ext.1), the IIC,
Kuchinda Police Station registered Kuchinda P.S. Case No. 8 of 2010
and directed S.I. (Hilarus Soreng) of that Police Station to take up the
investigation of the case.
CRLA No.458 of 2012
{{ 3 }}
3. During investigation, he (I.O.) examined the informant and
witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.10). He held
inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest
report (Ext.3) and then sent the dead body of the deceased for post
mortem examination issuing dead body challan. Accordingly,
postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was
conducted and report (Ext.5) to that effect was prepared. He (I.O) seized
the incriminating articles under seizure lists, arrested the accused and
sent him for medical examination. The blood sample of the accused was
collected and then he was forwarded to the Court. He (I.O) sent the
seized articles including blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased
and accused to R.F.S.L, Sambalpur as per the order of the Court for
chemical examination. Then on completion of the investigation, the
Final Form was submitted by the I.O. placing the accused to face the
trial for the commission of offences U/s 376 and 302 of the IPC, 1860.
4. Learned S.D.J.M, Kuchinda, having received the Final Form as
above took cognizance of the said offences after observing formalities
and committed the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kuchinda for trial. That is how, the trial commenced by framing
the charges U/s 376 and 307 of the IPC against the accused.
5. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false
implication of the accused. The specific plea of the defence as per the
statements of the accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was that, one
Kishori had dispute with his family members, for which, this case had
been foisted against him.
CRLA No.458 of 2012
{{ 4 }}
6. In the trial, prosecution had examined total fourteen (14)
witnesses.
Out of the fourteen (14) witnesses of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the
informant, P.W.2 is his nephew as well as son of the deceased, P.W.3 is
the scribe of F.I.R. (Ext.1), P.W.4 is the younger brother of the
deceased, P.W.5 is the nephew of the deceased, P.W.6 is the elder
brother of the deceased and P.W.7 is the witness to the inquest report
(Ext.3). P.W.9 is the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem
examination and had prepared the postmortem report and given the
quarry report vide Ext.5 & 6 respectively. P.Ws. 8, 10 , 11 & 12 are the
witnesses to the seizures whereas P.W.14 is the doctor, who had
examined the accused. P.W.13 is the I.O., who had conducted the
investigation and submitted Final Form.
7. In addition to the examination of above witnesses, prosecution has
also proved several documents such as Exts.1 to 10. Out of those, the
important are the F.I.R. (Ext.1) and the postmortem report (Ext.5).
8. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and scrutinizing the same at its level held that, the prosecution
has established the charge U/s 302 of the IPC, 1860 against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The learned counsel for the accused in order to assail the
impugned judgment of conviction contended that, though the Trial Court
has based the conviction U/s 302 of the IPC against the accused placing
reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 & 6, their evidence is not reliable
on the ground of their interestedness being the relatives of the deceased.
CRLA No.458 of 2012
{{ 5 }}
Thus, according to him, the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed against the accused cannot be sustained.
10. On the contrary, the learned Additional Standing Counsel
submitted in favour of the finding of guilt of the accused returned by the
Trial Court. He contended that, keeping in view the reliable evidence of
P.Ws.2, 4 & 6 coupled with the homicidal nature of death of the
deceased being the outcome of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased
wholly justify the finding of guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 302
of the IPC, which is not liable to be interfered with in this Appeal.
11. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully gone
through the impugned judgment of conviction and the depositions of the
witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 14 and
have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to
10.
12. The doctor (P.W.9) has deposed in his evidence by referring
postmortem report and his subsequent opinion vide Exts.5 and 6
respectively that, the deceased had sustained ante mortem internal
injuries i.e. rupture of her liver along with four ante mortem external
injuries. The cause of her death was due to excessive internal bleeding
on account of the rupture of the liver due to the affect of the injury No.4
and the said injury No.4 according to him was possible by dragging. The
above finding of the doctor (P.W.9) regarding homicidal nature of death
of the deceased has remained unassailed. Therefore, we are in agreement
with the finding of the Trial Court about the homicidal nature of the
death of the deceased.
CRLA No.458 of 2012
{{ 6 }}
13. P.W.2 has deposed in his evidence by stating that, <at the time of
incident, they noticed that, the accused was dragging his mother
(deceased) and left her at the back side of their house and leaving her
mother there, he ran away from the spot.=
14. P.W.4 has deposed in his evidence by stating that, <after reaching
at the house of the Hara (P.W.2), they noticed that, the accused is
dragging Sukanti (deceased) towards her house and leaving Sukanti near
her house, the accused fled away.=
15. P.W.6 has deposed that, on being called by his nephew Hara Kua
(P.W.2) and Kishore (P.W.4) that, the accused was assaulting deceased,
he had gone to the house of his sister (deceased Sukanti) and at that
time, he saw, the accused dragging his sister (deceased) towards her
house and soon thereafter leaving Sukanti, the accused left the spot.=
16. The seized wearing apparels of the accused were found stained
with human blood. There is no explanation from the side of the accused,
as to how his wearing apparels were stained with human blood. Said
non-explanation by the accused about the cause of staining of human
blood on the wearing apparels, which were seized at his instance
ultimately lead to show that, at the time of incident, the accused had
worn the said seized wearing apparels, which were stained with the
blood.
17. Thus, by taking the above evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 6 receiving
corroboration from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9) and the
postmortem report (Ext.5) along with the staining of the human blood on
the seized wearing apparels of the accused remaining unexplained into
CRLA No.458 of 2012
{{ 7 }}
account, it is found that, prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that, the death of the deceased was due to the forceful dragging by
the accused resulting the rupture of her liver. So, we are of the view that,
finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial
Court for having murdered deceased, Sukanti Kua has to sustain.
18. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed on dated 23 rd July, 2012 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in S.T. Case No.21 of
2010 are hereby confirmed.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
D. Dash, J. I Agree.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 3rd October, 2023//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Oct-2023 14:51:56
CRLA No.458 of 2012
