Orissa High Court
) Abhi @ Abhiram Puhan vs State Of Odisha on 1 October, 2024
Bench: D.Dash, V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.206 of 2003
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 24.06.2003 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T), Keonjhar in S.T
Case No.226/18 of 2000/02.
----
1) Abhi @ Abhiram Puhan .... Appellants
2) Tila Puhan
3) Tikar Puhan
-versus-
State of Odisha
.... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellants- Mr. Umakanta Barik,
Advocate
For Respondent- Mr. S. K. Nayak,
Additional Government
Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Date of Hearing : 10.09.2024 :: Date of Judgment:01.10.2024
The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have assailed the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
24.06.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T), Keonjhar in S.T Case No.226/18 of 2000/02, arising out of
Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.39 of 2000, corresponding to G.R
Case No.157 of 2000, of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Keonjhar.
The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder have been
convicted for commission of offence under section 302/201/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC') and they
have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 07.03.2000 evening, Mukunda Dehury, who
happens to be the brother of Jagabandhu Dehury (Informant-
P.W.1 (Uncle's Son) had been to the house of Harihara Puhan,
who is the father of these accused persons. It is stated that the
said Mukunda was having love affairs with the daughter of
Harihara; the sister of these accused persons. It is next stated
that when Mukunda was talking with his beloved, the accused
persons assaulted him and on he next day, i.e. on 08.03.2000,
Mukunda was taken to Bainspal Primary Health Centre for
treatment. Treatment being given to Mukunda in the said
hospital, he was advised to go to the District Head Quarter
Hospital, Keonjhar. Mukunda after few days left the house
without informing anyone as to where he was going. Since he
did not return, his family members had gone out in search of
him. However, they could not trace him out. On 20.03.2000,
one Trilochan Dhamudia informed that the dead body of
Mukunda was lying in a ditch inside Kelabani forest.
Jagabandhu, brother of Mukunda, having lodged a
written report to the above effect with the Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police (ASI) then attached to Suakathi Police Out
Post under Keonjhar Sadar Police Station, the same was
entered in the Station Diary Book maintained at the Police Out
Post and the ASI (P.W.14) having taken up preliminary steps
for investigation sent the same to the IIC, Keonjhar Sadar
Police Station for registration of the FIR and case.
It may not be out of place to mention that in the FIR
(Ext.1) lodged by Jagabandhu (Informant-P.W.1) he had
expressed his strong reason of belief as to the complicity of
these accused persons in committing the murder of Mukunda
in view of what had happened on 07.03.2000, when they had
assaulted Mukunda.
The ASI (P.W.14), receiving the written report (Ext.1)
from P.W.1 and other witnesses, deputed Police Constable to
guard the dead body by issuing the command certificate. As
per the order, on 16.03.2000, the ASI (P.W.14) handed over the
charge of investigation to the then Officer-in-Charge (OIC-
P.W.16). As directed by P.W.15, the ASI (P.W.14) had issued
the letter of requisition asking the Medical Officer of Bainspal
CHC to send the Medical Report, which being later on
received had been given to the I.O (P.W.16).
The I.O (P.W.16), having taken the charge of
investigation of the case on 16.03.2000, reexamined the
witnesses including the Informant (P.W.1) and visited the
spot, which is the bari of Harihar Puhan, the father of these
accused persons. He prepared the spot map (Ext.10) and also
prepared the spot map of the area in the Kelabani forest where
the dead body was lying by proceeding to that place. There he
held inquest (Ext.2/3) over the dead body of the deceased and
sent the dead body for Post Mortem Examination by issuing
necessary requisition. The wearing apparels of the deceased
were seized on being produced by the Police Constable after
the post mortem examination under seizure list (Ext.6/2). The
accused persons were thereafter arrested on 19.03.2000 and
forwarded in custody to Court on 20.03.2000. In course of
investigation, some other incriminating articles were seized
and ultimately Final Form was submitted. Placing these
accused persons to face the trial for commission of the offence
under Section 302/201/34 of the I.P.C.
3. Learned SDJM, Keonjhar receiving the Final Form as
above, took cognizance of the said offences and after
observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of
Sessions and that is how the trial commenced.
4. The plea of the accused is that of denial and false
implication.
5. In the Trial, prosecution in total has examined sixteen
(16) witnesses. Out of them, as already stated, P.W.1 is the
brother of the deceased and he had lodged the FIR (Ext.1)
being scribed by P.W.6. P.W.14 is the ASI, who had received
the report from P.W.1 and sent the same to the OIC, Keonjhar
Sadar Police Station for registration. Said OIC, being the I.O,
has been examined as P.W.16. The Doctor, who had initially
examined and treated the deceased on 17.03.2000 when has
been examined as P.W.9, the Doctor conducting Post Mortem
Examination has come to the witnesses box as P.W.15. Cousin
brother of Mukunda has been examined as P.W.2 whereas
P.W.3, P.W.5 & P.W.6 are their co-villagers and P.W.4 is the
father of Mukunda (deceased). The Ward Member of the
concerned village when has been examined as P.W.7, P.W.11
is the sister of these accused persons and she is none other
than the wife of the deceased. The uncle of the accused
persons is P.W.12 whereas P.W.13 is the brother of the
deceased.
6. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above
witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents
which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to
Ext.12/1. Out of those, the important are the FIR, Ext.1, Inquest
Report, Ext.2, Seizure List, Ext.3, Spot Maps, Exts.10 & 11 and
the Post Mortem Report is Ext.5. In the trial, the seized
incriminating articles being produced, those have been
marked Material Objects (M.O-I to M.O-III).
7. Learned counsel for the Appellants (accused persons)
submitted that the approach of the Trial Court from the
beginning in appreciating the evidence clearly appears to be
confused in as much as some incidents which had been
happened on 07.03.2000, have been taken to be the facts in
support of the charge framed against these accused persons
for commission of the offence under section 302/201/34 of the
IPC. He submitted that the trial was to find out the complicity
of these accused persons in committing the murder of
Mukunda and causing disappearance of evidence thereof and
when in support of the said charge, there is absolutely no
evidence on record either direct or circumstantial relying on
the evidence as to what had happened on 07.03.2000, the Trial
Court basing upon conjectures and surmises has held these
accused persons to be the authors of the crime for commission
of the murder of Mukunda, simply because, they happen to be
the three brothers of the lover of Mukunda. Inviting our
attention to the depositions of all the witnesses, he contended
that as regards the death of Mukunda, which has been proved
through medical evidence, no such incriminating
circumstances have been established save and except the so
called motive of the accused persons, which has been inferred
from the incident which had happened on 07.03.2000. He,
therefore, submitted that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are liable to be set
aside.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State while
supporting the finding of guilt against the accused persons as
has been rendered by the Trial Court, contended that the
incident, which had happened on 07.03.2000, clearly reveal the
motive for these accused persons in committing the said crime
and the dead body of Mukunda when has been recovered
from the jungle area as he was having no animosity with
anyone else other than these accused persons on account of
the assault made by these accused persons, for the causation
of death due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation, these
accused persons have been rightly held guilty.
9. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have
carefully read the judgment of conviction impugned in this
Appeal. We have also gone through the depositions of all the
witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.16. We have also perused the
documents which have been admitted in evidence and
marked Ext.1 to Ext.12/1.
10. The dead body of Mukunda was discovered on
15.03.2000 and the FIR (Ext.1) had been lodged on that day.
The Doctor (P.W.9), who had conducted the autopsy
over the dead body of the deceased having noted the external
injuries, has deposed that the cause of death was asphyxia
which might be due to strangulation and that he was
reiterated during cross-examination. No material has been
elicited from him as to have been noted any other feature even
remotely suggestive/indicative of the death of Mukunda to
have occurred for any reason other than strangulation.
Moreover, when we go through the evidence of P.W.9, we
find him to have noted all those features which are in
consonance with a case of death due to strangulation.
11. For what have been stated above, now the point before
the Court as to whether for the said death of Mukunda on
account of strangulation, these accused persons are
responsible.
12. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence on the said score.
As has been deposed by a number of witnesses including the
Informant-P.W.1 that on 07.03.2000, the accused persons had
assaulted Mukunda, who purportedly had a relationship with
their sister when they saw him talking with her. It has also
been stated by P.W.1 & others that subsequent to such assault
as per decision in the village meeting, the sister of these
accused persons resided in the house of Mukunda as his wife
and from the 4th day therefrom, the whereabouts of Mukunda
could not be known. It has also been stated by P.W.2 that after
8 days of the occurrence, Mukunda left his house and his
whereabouts could not be known and ultimately, his dead
body was found in the forest. He has stated that Mukunda
had told that he had been assaulted by the accused persons
being given kicks which has no nexus with the cause of death.
P.W.3 has also stated in the same line. It is the evidence of
P.W.4 that about two days after the occurrence, his son
Mukunda left the house and he could not be traced out
despite search and later on his dead body was found in a ditch
situated in the forest area. It has been stated by P.W.5 that
after the incident, which had taken place on 07.03.2000
whereafter a meeting had been held, Mukunda had been to
Banspal Government Hospital and then to the District Head
Quarter Hospital, Keonjhar for treatment and three to four
days after the treatment, he left the house whereafter he being
searched, could not be traced out. He has stated that
ultimately his dead body was found lying in a ditch in the
forest area. P.W.7 has also stated about such missing of
Mukunda and his dead body being recovered few days
thereafter. The sister of these accused persons, who after the
incident happening on 07.03.2000 had gone to the house of the
accused and stayed there with Mukunda as his wife, she has
stated to have as such led the life for eight days whereafter
Mukunda left the house. It has been stated by P.W.13 that
after the first incident, a meeting being held, the sister of these
accused persons (P.W.11) came and stayed with Mukunda in
his house.
As per his evidence, since Mukunda was behaving
abnormally, he was receiving the medical treatment and on
one night, he left the house. Thus, the above evidence reveal
that on 07.03.2000, after the meeting was held in the village, in
view of the assault being made by these accused persons upon
the deceased, being found by these accused persons talking
with P.W.11 (sister of these accused persons), the deceased
and P.W.11 came and stayed together in the house of the
deceased.
The deceased then had received the treatment under the
Doctor (P.W.15), who had noted abrasion on right leg, two
scratch injuries over right scapular region and two other
scratch injuries over right elbow and medial side of left knee
respectively. All these injuries as per the evidence of P.W.15
were simple in nature. This P.W.15 having examined
Mukunda on 08.03.2000, no other medical examination reports
have been proved from the side of the prosecution, although it
is the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Mukunda
had also received treatment in the District Head Quarter
Hospital, Keonjhar. All these being the evidence available on
record it can only be said that pursuant to the decision in the
meeting, when the deceased and P.W.11 together stayed as
husband and wife in the house of the deceased the accused
persons were inimically disposed of towards the deceased; in
the absence of any other evidence it cannot be said that they
had the motive to eliminate the deceased. For the moment, if
we even take that there was motive on the part of these
accused persons to eliminate the deceased, without any other
evidence establishing some incriminating circumstances as
against these accused persons that they had at any time after
the deceased left his house, met him, or followed him or were
found inside the jungle while going to the jungle or returning,
or as to the recovery of any incriminating articles at their
instance from their house or any other place having nexus
with the causation of death of Mukunda by strangulation, we
are led to record that the finding of the Trial Court holding
these accused persons to be guilty of committing the murder
of Mukunda cannot be sustained.
13. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed. The judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2003, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in
S.T. Case No.226/18 of 2000/02 is hereby set aside.
Since the Appellants (accused persons) are on bail, the
bail bonds executed by the Appellants (accused persons) shall
stand cancelled.
(V. Narasingh) (D. Dash)
Judge Judge
Gitanjali
