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 CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 1 of 12 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 CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 2 of 12 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- CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 3 of 12 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.
CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 4 of 12
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 CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 5 of 12 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 CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 6 of 12 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. CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 7 of 12
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.
CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 8 of 12
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 CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 9 of 12 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.
CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 10 of 12
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 CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 11 of 12 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 01-Oct-2024 14:59:34
CRLA No.206 of 2003 Page 12 of 12