Orissa High Court
In The Matter Of An Appeal Under ... vs State Of Odisha on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA NO.650 OF 2014
In the matter of an Appeal under section-374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 2nd June, 2014 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.315 of
2012.
----
Anji @ Ranjit Naik
....
Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
==================================================
For Appellant - Mrs. Bharati Dash,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. G.N. Rout,
Additional Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
DATE OF HEARING :26.09.2023 : DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09.10.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant by filing this Appeal has assailed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd June,
2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions
Trial No.315 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.621 of 2012
CRLA No.650 of 2014
{{ 2 }}
corresponding to Choudwar P.S. Case No.73 of 2012 of the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.)(Rural), Cuttack.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder have been convicted
for commission of offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short called as the IPC). Accordingly, the
Appellant (accused) has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months for the
offence under section-302 of the IPC.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 14.05.2012 around 7 pm, when one Bhima Nayak was
there near the underpass (Gala Pola) situated near the Paper Mill
of Choudwar; the accused came and assaulted him on his head
by a laterite stone, which resulted his fall. And it is said that at
that time, Kalia Naayak (P.W.2), Pravakar Behera (P.W.3) and
Bijaya Nayak (P.W.8), were very present nearby as they were
returning to their village through that underpass. The son of
deceased namely, Hemanta Nayak (P.W.1) thereafter having
lodged a written report with the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC),
Choudwar Police Station, he treated the same as the F.I.R. and on
registering the case, took up investigation.
In course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.10) examined the
informant (P.W.1). He then proceeded to the spot and seized the
incriminating articles such as blood stained earth and sample
earth, bloodstained gauge cloth, one small laterite stone stained
CRLA No.650 of 2014
{{ 3 }}
with blood and the same were sent to SFSL, Bhubaneswar for
chemical examination. He also prepared the spot map, Ext.8. He
then examined other witnesses and arrested the accused. He also
held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared
inquest report and marked Ext.2. The I.O. (P.W.10) then sent the
dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination and
received the postmortem report, Ext.4. On completion of
investigation, the I.O. (P.W.10) submitted the Final Form, placing
this accused-Anji @ Ranjit Naik to face the trial for the offence
under section-302 of the IPC.
3. The learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack having received the
Final Form as above, 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 said offence against the accused.
4. In the Trial, the prosecution has examined in total ten (10)
witnesses. Out of whom, as already stated, the Informant who
had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8
are the eye witness to the occurrence; whereas P.W.6 is the
Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased. The I.O. has come to the witness box at the end has
been examined as P.W.10.
5. The prosecution besides leading the evidence by
examining the above witnesses has also proved several
CRLA No.650 of 2014
{{ 4 }}
documents, which have been admitted and marked as Exts.1 to
10. Out of those, as already stated the F.I.R. is Ext.1 whereas the
inquest report is Ext.2 and the postmortem examination report is
Ext.4. The spot map had been admitted in evidence and marked
Ext.9, whereas chemical examination report is marked as Ext.6.
6. The plea of the accused is that of the complete denial.
However, no evidence has been tendered from the side of the
accused during the trial.
7. The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence on record and
placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and the
medical evidence falling from the lips of P.W.6 has concluded
that the prosecution has established its case against this accused
as to have intentionally caused the death of Bhima (deceased) by
causing injuries on his head by means of laterite stone beyond
any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused having been
convicted for commission of offence under section-302 of the
IPC, he has been sentenced as aforestated.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) from the very
beginning instead of questioning the finding of the Trial Court as
regards role played and act done by the accused in causing
injuries upon the deceased by means of laterite stone, placing the
surrounding circumstances which has emanate from the
evidence on record including which had fallen from the lips of
P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8, as well as the evidence of the Doctor
CRLA No.650 of 2014
{{ 5 }}
(P.W.6) and his report Ext.4 contended that the Trial Court ought
not to have convicted the accused for commission of offence
under section-302 of the IPC and instead the conviction ought to
have recorded for commission of the offence under section-304-II
of the IPC. Accordingly, she urged for modification of the
conviction and appropriate reduction of the sentence.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State while
supporting the conviction of the accused for commission of
offence under section-302 of the IPC, inviting our attention to the
evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 8 as well as the evidence of the Doctor
(P.W.6), contended that the accused having assaulted the
deceased on his head to be the seat of the injuries that he
intended to inflict and that too by means of laterite stone, all
these facts are enough to hold that the accused is liable for
intentionally causing the death of Bhima and the offence
committed by the accused would thus stand categorized under
section-302 of the IPC.
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 10 and have perused the
documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked
as Exts.1 to 10.
CRLA No.650 of 2014
{{ 6 }}
11. In order to address the rival submission, first of all the
evidence of P.W.2 as well as the F.I.R. (Ext.1) being gone
through, it is seen that what have been suppressed in the F.I.R.
was that the happening prior to the actual assault, which have
been stated by this P.W.2. He has stated that he saw that the
accused and the deceased were quarreling and then in course of
that, the deceased had fall on the ground and accused assaulting
him; thereafter when he made shout, the accused lifted a laterite
stone and threshed on the head of the deceased.
P.W.3 has stated that when he arrived, Bhima was on the
ground, he saw accused lifting a laterite stone and threshing
same on the head of the deceased. This P.W.3 is not stating
anything about the quarrel to be going on between the accused
and deceased. At this stage, turning our attention to the evidence
of the Doctor (P.W.6), we find him to have stated that he had
noticed de-pressed communicating fracture over an area of 8cm
x 5cm on the left parietal head underneath. The external injury of
little curved laceration of size 5cm x 0.5 cm injury scalps deep on
the left temple of head adjoining the parietal eminence with
infiltration of red bloods. It is not there in the evidence that the
accused had caused any assault on the deceased after the first
one. The evidence of P.W.6 is also silent. It appears from the
evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that there was no prior planning for the
incident and it happened in course of quarreling between the
CRLA No.650 of 2014
{{ 7 }}
accused and the deceased. The parties hail from the rural
background and earned their livelihood by working as labourers.
The judicial notice of the fact can be taken that was temper run
high amongst such persons who were working as labourer
hailing from the villages run high and for the silly reasons, they
often behave and respond unexpectedly and aggressively.
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-304-I of IPC.
Accordingly, 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 2nd June, 2014 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.315 of 2012, the
Appeal stands disposed of.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Mr. A.C. Behera, J. I Agree.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: NARAYAN HO (A.C. Behera),
Designation: Peresonal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Judge.
Date: 11-Oct-2023 17:43:44
Narayan
CRLA No.650 of 2014
