Jatia Munda vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 12162 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRLA No.604 of 2014

        In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
  and the order of sentence dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the
  learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
  Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.51/101 of 2012.
                                     ----

      Jatia Munda                           ....        Appellant

                                 -versus-

      State of Odisha                       ....       Respondent

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

              For Appellant      -      Mr.Chitta Ranjan Sahu
                                        (Advocate)

              For Respondent -          Mr.P.K.Mohanty,
                                        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 called in

question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence

dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.51/101

of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.17 of 2012 corresponding to

CRLA No.604 of 2014

Nayakote P.S. Case No.01 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Sub-

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

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for

committing the offence under section 302/307/34 of the Indian

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

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the offence

under section 302 of the IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment

of five (5) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

(6) months for commission of the office under section 307 of the

IPC, with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would

run concurrently.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 07.01.2012 around 5.00 p.m, one Narada Munda (P.W.2),

who is the younger brother of Patka Munda (P.W.10) presented a

written report being scribed by one Ramakana Dangua (P.W.1)

with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Nayakote Police Station

(P.S.) stating therein that on the previous evening, this accused

Jatia Munda and his son Gopal Munda (since acquitted) inflicted

injuries on the person of Tasa Munda and Patka Munda (P.W.10)

by means of a tangia.

CRLA No.604 of 2014

Receiving the said report, the IIC (P.W.8) treated the same

as the FIR (Ext.1) and upon registration of the case, took up

investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.8) immediately recorded

the statement of the informant (P.W.2) and the scribe of the FIR

(P.W.1). The I.O. (P.W.8) then having visited the spot, prepared

the spot map (Ext.8). He arrested this accused and his son Gopal

(since acquitted). This accused, namely, Jatia, while in custody,

pursuant to their statement, gave recovery of the weapon of

offence (tangia), which has been seized under seizure list (Ext.2).

He seized the blood stained earth and sample earth under seizure

list Ext.9. The wearing apparels of the accused persons were

seized under the seizure lists (Ext.10 & 11). The I.O. (P.W.8) had

held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared

the report to that effect (Ext.3). The dead body of the deceased

was the sent for postmortem examination by issuing necessary

requisition. The seized incriminating articles were sent for

chemical examination through Court. Thereafter, on completion

of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.8) submitted the Final Form

placing this accused and his son, namely, Gopal Munda (since

acquitted) to face the Trial for commission of the offence under

sections 302/307/34 of the IPC.

CRLA No.604 of 2014

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar, on receipt of the Final Form,

took cognizance of said offences 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

offences against this accused and his son Gopal (Since acquitted).

5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has

examined in total twelve (12) witnesses. As already stated, the

informant, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.2. The scribe of

the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.Ws.3 & 4 are co-villagers of the accused

persons. P.Ws.5 & 6 are the staffs of the P.S. and the witnesses to

the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. The Doctor, who

had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body

of the deceased is P.W.7. The I.O. of the case has come to the

witness box as P.W.8. The eye witness to the occurrence is P.W.10

and P.W.11 is the wife of the deceased whereas P.W.12 is the

Doctor, who had medically examined the injured person, namely,

Patka Munda (P.W.10).

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 14.

Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.3); the

spot map (Ext.8), and the post mortem report (Ext.6).

CRLA No.604 of 2014

6. The accused persons, in support of their plea of denial and

false implication have, however, not tendered any evidence

despite opportunity.

7. The Trial Court, having gone through the evidence and

upon their scrutiny, while acquitting accused Gopal Munda of

the charges, has found this accused Jatia Munda to be guilty for

commission of the offence under section 302/307/34 of the IPC in

intentionally causing the death of Tasa Munda and attempting to

commit the murder of Patka Munda (P.W.10).

8. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused)

submitted that the prosecution case here is based on the solitary

testimony of P.W.10. According to him, the Trial Court, without

proper appreciation of P.W.10, in the backdrop of surrounding

circumstances, which have emanated in evidence, has

unjustifiably placed reliance upon said evidence in holding the

prosecution to have established the charges against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the evidence of

P.W.10 if read as a whole would appear to be highly improbable

and, therefore, in the absence of any material corroboration from

independent sources to the evidence P.W.10 even though he is an

injured witness and one of the victims, the Trial Court ought not

to have held the accused guilty of commission of the offence

under section 302/307 of the IPC.

CRLA No.604 of 2014

9. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for

the Respondent-State, while submitting all in favour of the

finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the

Trial Court, contended that the evidence of P.W.10, who himself

is an injured and the victim in the occurrence is wholly reliable.

He further submitted that the P.W.10, having narrated the

incident in a natural manner and that being free from any such

form infirmity whatsoever the Trial Court has rightly held this

accused guilty of coming the murder of Tasa Munda and having

attempted to commit the murder of Patka Munda (P.W.10). He

submitted that on scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Trial

Court even though has held that the prosecution has not been

able to prove the role of the accused Gopal (since acquitted) in the

said incident so as to be held liable for the offences for which he

was standing charged that would not be the ground to hold that

the positive version of P.W.10 in respect of the role played and act

done by this accused Jatia is not reliable and acceptable.

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

gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have

also extensively travelled through the depositions of the

witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to

12) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence

marked as Exts.1 to 14.

CRLA No.604 of 2014

11. In the instant case, the star witness for the prosecution is

P.W.10. who was injured in the said incident along with the

deceased.

It is the settled position of law that if the court finds the

evidence of the solitary witness to be of sterling quality, there is

no bar for accepting the same as the basis for holding the offender

guilty for the acts done by him in committing the offence. In the

backdrop of the above, we now to proceed to examine the

evidence of P.W.10. P.W.10 has stated that on the relevant date,

during evening hours, this accused and the deceased were

quarrelling with each other and thereafter accused Jatia hacked

the deceased by means of a tangia. It is further stated that accused

Jatia dealt repeated blows on the head of the deceased by that

tangia and when he (P.W.10) protested, he too was assaulted by

accused Jatia by that tangia for which he (P.W.10) sustained

bleeding injury. Although this witness has been cross-examined,

we find absolutely no such material to have been elicited to raise

any doubt with regard to his presence at the site where the

incident took place. When he has stated to be present with the

deceased and to have protested and then was also assaulted by

this accused, said evidence is receiving full support from the

evidence of the Doctor (P.W.12). It is the evidence of the Doctor

(P.W.12) that he, during his examination of P.W.10 at the request

of the I.O., had noticed six incised wounds on his person. It is also

CRLA No.604 of 2014

the evidence of the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem

examination over the dead body of Tasa that during the said

examination, he noticed lacerated injuries near his left ear, corner

of the right eye and right cheek. It is stated by him that on

dissection, he had noticed crush injury on right parietal, left

temporal and right parietal and right temporal region. With the

above evidence, we again find the evidence of P.W.2, who has

stated to have immediately rushed to the place and found

deceased lying in a pool of blood and P.W.10, having been

injured, was not having any sense and lying on the ground. It has

been further stated by P.W.2 that P.W.10, when regained the

sense, he narrated the incident that accused Jatia assaulted him

and Tasa by that tangia. So, there comes the immediate disclosure

of P.W.10 about the incident before P.W.2 and thus the question

of later development of any sort in implicating this accused is

totally ruled out. Although the prosecution through P.W.4 has

sought to prove that accused Jatia had confessed to have

committed the crime, yet even without accepting said evidence of

P.W.4, the evidence of P.W.10, as discussed, which is receiving

the corroboration from other evidence including the medical

evidence, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has

rightly convicted the accused for committing the offence under

section 302/307 of the IPC.

CRLA No.604 of 2014

Therefore, in our considered view, the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal, are

well in order and do not warrant interference.

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

conviction and the order of sentence dated 10th October, 2012

passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Court, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.51/101 of 2012 are hereby

confirmed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

A.C.Behera, J. I Agree.

(A.C.Behera), Judge.

Basu

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT

CRLA No.604 of 2014