Orissa High Court
Guddu @ Chintamani Baghel vs State Of Odisha on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA NO.125 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 18.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 respectively
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in
Sessions Trial Case No.162/35/15 of 2012-13.
----
....
Guddu @ Chintamani Baghel Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
=================================================
For Appellant - Mr. S. Sourav,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. S.K. Nayak,
Additional Government
Advocate.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
DATE OF HEARING :03.10.2023:DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09.10.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal has challenged the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2013
and 24.12.2013 respectively arising out of G.R. Case No.157 of
2012 corresponding to Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.24 of
2012 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(S.D.J.M.), Sundargarh.
CRLA NO.125 OF 2014
{{ 2 }}
It is stated here that this Appellant with his brother,
namely, Manoj @ Manna Baghel had filed this Appeal. During
pendency of this Appeal, convict Manoj @ Manna having died,
as no one coming forward to pursue the Appeal on his behalf;
the Appeal stood abated in so far as that convict is concerned.
The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for
commission of offence under section-302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short called as 'the IPC'). Accordingly, the Appellant
has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years.
2. Prosecution case is that on 01.03.2012 around 4 pm, when
Sahadev Badek and his wife were in the house, Baladev Baghel
and his two sons namely Gudu and Manoj @ Mana Baghel came
and they assaulted Sahadev by means of a wooden plank on his
head and hand. When his wife and another relation namely,
Niranjan (P.W.7) arrived, the accused persons fled away. As a
result of said assault, Sahadev, the father of the Informant,
namely, Janma Badaik (P.W.8) sustained bleeding injuries on his
head and fracture on his right hand. The Informant (P.W.8)
immediately shifted his father and admitted him at District
Headquarter Hospital, Sundargarh and the matter was reported
to the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC) Sundargarh Sadar Police Station
on the same date at 8 pm. The IIC, having treated the same as
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 3 }}
F.I.R., registered the case and directed the Asst. Sub-Inspector
(ASI) of Police of that Police Station, i.e. P.W.9 to take up
investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.9) examined the
Informant (P.W.8), the injured-Sahadev Badaik at the P.S. and
issued injury requisition in his favour for his medical
examination. He then visited the spot, seized the weapon of
offence i.e. one sal lathi stained with blood in presence of
witnesses along with the blood stained earth and sample earth
and prepared seizure list, Ext.6. He too prepared the spot map-
Ext.9. On the next day, i.e., on 02.03.2012, the IIC got the
information that injured Sahadeev Badaik while undergoing
treatment, succumbed to the injuries at the District Headquarter
Hospital, Sundargarh. So, the IO (P.W.9) held inquest over the
dead body of the deceased-Sahadev in presence of witnesses and
prepared the inquest report to that effect, Ext.1. The dead body
was sent for postmortem examination by issuance of necessary
requisition. On his transfer, he handed over the charge of
investigation to the then IIC (P.W.12), who re-examined few
witnesses and on completion of investigation, submitted the
Final Form placing the accused persons namely, Manoj @ Manna
Baghel (since dead), Balabhadra Baghel and Guddu @
Chintamani Baghel placing them to face the trial for commission
of offence under section-302/34 of the IPC.
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 4 }}
4. The learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh 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.
5. In the Trial, the prosecution has examined in total twelve
(12) witnesses. Out of whom, as already stated that the
Informant who is son of the deceased had lodged the F.I.R.
(Ext.7) is P.W.8, P.W.1 is wife of the deceased-Sahadev, P.W.2 is
the daughter-in-law of the deceased and is a post occurrence
witness as also the witness to the inquest held over the dead
body of the deceased whereas P.W.9 is the eye witness. P.W.4 is
the medical officer who had conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased. Two I.Os. of the case have been examined
as P.W.9 and 12.
6. The prosecution besides leading the evidence by
examining the above witnesses has also proved several
documents, which have been admitted and marked as Exts.1 to
12. Out of those, as already stated the F.I.R. is Ext.7 whereas the
inquest report, postmortem examination report and spot map
have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1, 2 and 8
respectively.
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 5 }}
7. The plea of the defence is that of complete denial.
However, no evidence has been tendered from the side of the
accused during the trial.
8. The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence on record and
placing reliance upon the evidence of the eye witnesses P.W.1
and 7 and the medical evidence coming from the lips of P.W.4
has concluded that the charge against the accused persons for
the offence under section-302/34 of the IPC for having
intentionally caused the death of Sahadev by assaulting him by
means of wooden plank has been established beyond reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, this accused has been convicted for
commission of offence under section-302/34 of the IPC and has
been sentenced as aforestated.
It be stated here that the Trial Court having found the
prosecution to have failed to establish the charge as against the
accused namely, Balabhadra Baghel who is the father of this
accused, has acquitted him and it is stated at the Bar that said
order of acquittal of the father of this accused has not been
under challenged.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) without
disputing the nature of death of Sahadev to be homicidal as has
been held by the Trial Court relying upon the evidence of
Doctor, P.W.4, who had conducted postmortem examination of
the dead body of Sahadev, the I.O. P.W.9, who held inquest over
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 6 }}
the dead body of the deceased and other witnesses, who had
seen the deceased in an injured condition, confined his
submission on the question of alteration of conviction to one
under section-304-I of the IPC from section-302 of the IPC as has
been fixed by the Trial Court. He submitted that even accepting
the prosecution evidence with regard to the role played by the
accused and the acts done, the Trial Court ought not to have
held the accused guilty for commission of offence under section-
302 of the IPC. According to him, the evidence on record would
reveal that there was no prior planning behind the incident, the
accused and the deceased had quarreled and fought with each
other, when the accused was not holding any weapon. In view
of all these above, keeping in mind that the parties hail from
rural background, mostly having high temper showing
abnormal and unexpected behavior in silly matters; according to
him, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for
commission of the offence under section-302 of the IPC. In this
connection, he has invited our attention to the depositions for all
those witnesses and also the F.I.R., Ext.7. He thus urged for
appropriate modification of the conviction and reduction of the
sentence.
10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted all in
favour of the finding of the Trial Court holding the accused
guilty for commission of the offence under section-302 of the
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 7 }}
IPC. He contended that this accused with others having
assaulted the deceased by means of Sal lathi, the offence
committed would stand categorized under section-302 of the
IPC.
11. 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 12 and have perused the
documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked
as Exts.1 to 11.
12. Addressing the rival submissions on the question of
altercation of the conviction, it is seen from the evidence of
P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased that when her husband
was standing on the threshing floor, this accused with his father
and brother came being armed with lathi and split wood and
assaulted Sahadev. She has further stated that her husband was
having some problem in his hydrocele when it is the evidence of
P.W.4 who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased that the death was on account of the injuries to the vital
organ like brain. This P.W.1, however, does not attribute this
accused who have caused to any injury on the head of Sahadev
(deceased).
P.W.6 having stated that his father-in-law had disclosed the
fact that this accused and two others had assaulted him, does not
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 8 }}
state that his father-in-law (deceased-Sahadev) had told that this
accused had caused the injuries by means of lathi or wooden
plank on his head.
P.W.7 is stated to have seen this accused and his brother
assaulting Sahadev by sal lathi. He also does not state that this
accused has assaulted Sahadev on his head. P.W.8 has also stated to
have been told by his father that this accused and two others had
assaulted him. He is even silent as to the user of lathi by this
accused.
The incident having taken place on 01.03.2012, Sahadev
met his death on 02.03.2012 in the hospital while undergoing
treatment. It is said by P.W.6 that accused persons suddenly
arrived and started assaulting the deceased. When absolutely no
evidence is forthcoming with regard to any ill feeling between the
deceased and accused persons for any reason whatsoever, the above
story as to the occurrence presented by P.W.6 gives rise to
suspicion in mind that some other happenings prior to the actual
assault are being suppressed.
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
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
{{ 9 }}
304-I of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years.
13. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. With the above
modification of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 respectively passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions
Trial Case No.162/35/15 of 2012-13, the Appeal stands disposed
of.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Mr. A.C. Behera, J. I Agree.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Narayan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: NARAYAN HO
Designation: Peresonal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 11-Oct-2023 17:43:43
CRLA NO. 125 OF 2014
