A division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash upheld the trial court judgment while rejecting the appeal since the eyewitness testimonies were found to be fully corroborated by the medical evidence which talks of the deceased’s head being decapitated with a tangia used by the defendant. The court further highlighted that if the evidence of any interested witness or a relative on a careful scrutiny is found to be consistent and trustworthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment there is no reason not to place reliance on the same.
Facts:
One Sahadev Dhibar (PW 5) gave a report in writing at the Police Station the Appellant had come to his house and started a quarrel with him due to previous land dispute. Armed with a tangia, the Appellant started chasing him. At that time, maternal grand-father of PW 5, late Ratna Jamkia protested against the action of the Appellant and tried to prevent him from attacking PW 5. The Appellant then dealt a heavy blow with the tangia on the shoulder of the deceased, as a result of which he fell on the ground sustaining severe bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the Appellant repeatedly gave blows on the neck of the deceased till the head was completely severed from his body. The deceased died instantly at the spot. Thereafter, the Appellant left the spot with the tangia and the severed head of the deceased. The sub-inspector (PW-11) took up the investigation. On receiving reliable information, he proceeded towards Bonai and apprehended the Appellant on the way near the Fire Station, Bonai. He then seized both the weapon of offence and the cut head of the deceased. When he came back to the spot, he located the dead body of the deceased without its head.
On the village road, he joined the cut head with the neck of the dead body. PW 5 then identified the dead body being that of the deceased. PW 11 prepared an inquest report and then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was led against the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PWs 1, 2 and 9 were the occurrence witnesses. PWs 3 and 4 were the seizure witnesses. PWs 6, 7, 8 and 12 were other seizure witnesses. PW 13 is the wife of the informant (PW 5). PW 10 was the medical officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.
Observations of the Court:
The case is based on direct evidence with the eyewitnesses' testimonies being unshaken. PW 5 was very much present and has spoken clearly and cogently about not only the Appellant killing the deceased but also drinking his blood with both his hands and throwing some khaini on the chest of the deceased and then going away from the spot with the cut head and weapon. The only submission that learned counsel for the Appellant made in this regard is that PW 5 is a related witness and therefore, an interested witness. Therefore, his evidence had to be approached with great caution. The law in this regard is well settled.
In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675, the Court stated that it cannot be laid down as "an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
The bench relied on the principle laid down in Arjun Marik v State of Bihar1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, which held that a mere relationship of the witnesses cannot be the sole basis to discard the evidence if it is otherwise found to be believable and trustworthy. If the evidence of any interested witness or a relative on a careful scrutiny is found to be consistent and trustworthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment there is no reason not to place reliance on the same.
In the present case, the above eyewitness testimonies were found to be fully corroborated by the medical evidence which talks of the head being decapitated. PW 13 the wife of PW 5 also is an eyewitness and has completely corroborated the version of PW 5. The post occurrence witness was PW 1, who found that PW 5 had come to him crying and asking to save him from the clutches of the Appellant. PW 2 stated that he found the Appellant assaulting the deceased on the neck with an axe, as a result of which, he died at the spot. PW 2 is therefore, apart from PW 5 and 13 another eyewitness to the occurrence. All three eyewitnesses are clear, cogent and consistent and their testimonies are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. They have been rightly believed by the trial Court. With the evidence being clear and unimpeachable, no error is committed by the trial Court in proceeding to convict the Appellant and sentencing him in the manner indicated.
Decision:
The court dismissed the appeal on account of lack of merit.
Case: Sambaru Dhibar vs. State of Odisha
Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Citation: JCRLA No. 6 of 2016
Decided on: 30.09.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
