Orissa High Court
Ganga Madkami vs State Of Odisha on 8 January, 2024
Bench: D.Dash, G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.24 of 2011
In the matter of an Appeal under section 383 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 31.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC), Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No.34 of 2010, of
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Motu.
Ganga Madkami .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.Vibekananda Jena,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. P. K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing :21.12.2023 :: Date of Judgment:08.01.2024
D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail,
has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No.34 of 2010, corresponding to M.V.79
P.S. Case No.12 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Motu.
{{ 2 }}
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for
commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of six months for the
offence under section 302 of the IPC.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 27.04.2010 at 8.05 am, one Kana Madkami (Informant-P.W.1)
lodged a report (Ext.1) written by one Dambarudhar Suna, with the
Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of M.V. 79 Police Station. It was stated
therein that his elder brother, Ganga Madkami (accused) called his
daughter from inside the house to take rice and when the daughter of the
accused went inside and took her meal, the accused gave a blow on the
backside of her head by means of a pidha (a flattened piece of wood of
rectangular size used for sitting). Receiving the said blow, the daughter
of the accused namely, Sume Madkami become unconscious and she
being immediately taken to the nearest Government Hospital by the
informant and one co-villager, namely Narayan Mandal, was declared
dead. It is stated that the accused intentionally caused the death of his
daughter Sume.
The written report being received by the I.I.C., he treated the
same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, directed the Sub-Inspector
(SI) of Police to take up investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the I.O (P.W.6) examined the
informant (P.W.1), conducted inquest over the dead body of the
deceased Sume and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2). He visited the
{{ 3 }}
spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.8). He sent the dead body for post
mortem examination to UGPHC, Kalimela. Further continuing with the
investigation, he seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and one
Mali (Mala) made of plastic bids and two pieces of Bangles in presence
of witnesses under seizure list Ext.7. The I.O (P.W.6) examined other
witnesses and seized one wood pidha, one light green colour frock under
seizure list (Ext.9). On 28.04.2010, the I.O apprehended the accused. He
then seized one black colour lungi and one fed vrown colour zeen shirt
of the accused under seizure list (Ext.4). The accused was forwarded in
custody to Court. The seized incriminating articles were sent for
chemical examination to RFSL, Berhampur through Court.
Finally, on completion of investigation, the I.O (P.W.6) submitted
the Final Form placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of
offence under section 302 of the IPC.
4. Learned JMFC, Motu on receipt of the Final Form, took
cognizance of the offence under section 302 of the IPC 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 in total has examined nine (9)
witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the informant, who had lodged the
FIR (Ext.1) and younger brother of the accused. P.W.3, 4, 5,7 & 8 are
the co-villagers of the accused. The doctor who had conducted post
mortem over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.9 and the
Investigating Officer has come to the witness box as P.W.6.
{{ 4 }}
6. Besides leading the evidence by examining above the witnesses,
the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been
admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.16/1. Out of those, the
important are the FIR, Ext.1, inquest report, Ext.2, spot map, Ext.8, Post
Mortem Report, Ext.15 and chemical examination report, Ext.14.
7. The accused has tendered no evidence in support of his plea of
denial and false implication.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) at the outset without
challenging the nature of death of Sume, placing the role of this accused
as emanate from the evidence of the witnesses contended that the Trial
Court for said act of the accused and role played, ought not to have
convicted him for the commission of offence under section 302 of the
IPC and instead the accused ought to have been held guilt for the
offence punishable under section 304-I of the IPC. Accordingly, he
urged for altercation of conviction and imposition of sentence as deemed
just and proper.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted all in favour
of the finding of the Trial Court that the accused is liable for committing
the offence under section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that the blow
having been given on the head of the deceased, the Trial Court did
commit no mistake in holding the accused guilty of commission of
offence under section 302 of the IPC notwithstanding the fact that it is a
case of solitary blow being given by the accused.
10. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read
the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also extensively
travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.9) and
{{ 5 }}
have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1
to Ext.16/1.
11. It has been stated by P.W.1 (Informant), who happens to be the
younger brother of the accused that when he rushed to the house of the
accused, being informed by one woman and children, he was told by
them that the accused called Sume to take rice and thereafter, Sume had
gone to the house and sometime later, they heard the shout of Sume and
saw accused coming out of the house and then running towards the
jungle. P.W.3 has also stated in the same vein. It has been stated by
P.W.5 that having gone to the place, she had seen the pidha to be lying
by the side of the daughter of the accused, who was then found in an
unconscious state. The Doctor (P.W.9), who had conducted autopsy
over the dead body of the deceased had noticed one external injury on
the occipital propuberence and it was a cut wound. On dissection, he had
found the skull to have been fractured and brain matter congested with
intra cerebral haemorrhage in the right cerebral hemisphere.
The evidence on record reveal that the accused having called his
daughter to take rice, her daughter had gone to the house and sometime
thereafter accused came out of the house and went away. No such
evidence is forthcoming to ascertain as to how the incident took place
and after how much gap from the time when the deceased entered into
the house being called by the accused. It is also there in the evidence
that some shout was heard from inside the house. Materials on record do
not reveal that the accused had any motive behind the causation of such
incident. The accused is a member of Scheduled Tribe and hails from
Scheduled Area of the State, whose tamper usually run high and
{{ 6 }}
behaviour often even for silly reasons seen as abnormal and totally
unexpected.
12. Taking a cumulative view of all these above circumstances, this
Court is of the view that the offence could be properly categorized as
one punishable under section 304 Part-I of the IPC. We are thus of the
considered opinion that for the role played and act done by the accused,
he would be liable for conviction under section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
13. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the accused is altered
to one under section 304 Part-I of the IPC and accordingly, he is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10)
years.
14. With the above modification as to the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the Appeal stands disposed of.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
G. Satapathy, J. I Agree.
(G. Satapathy),
Judge.
Gitanjali
Designation: Junior Stenographer
