Orissa High Court
Jinu Jani vs State Of Odisha on 4 December, 2023
Bench: D.Dash, G.Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.64 of 2015
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 17th August, 2015 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial
No.176 of 2012.
----
Jinu Jani .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.Chitta Ranjan Sahoo
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.P.K.Mohanty
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE G.SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing : 15.11.2023 : Date of Judgment : 04.12.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th August, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.176 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.314 of 2012 corresponding to Page 1 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -2- Semiliguda P.S. Case No.42 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Koraput.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of the said offence.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 31.05.2012 around 8.00 a.m., Miluku Muduli (P.W.1) had gone to the nearby forest to collect firewood. He returned in the evening around 6.00 p.m, and on his return, he came to know from his co-villager, namely, Laxman Muduli (P.W.7) that the accused, after having assaulted his wife Chandrama Jani by means of a bamboo lathi, was also mercilessly assaulting her inside the room by locking the same from inside. Since the accused was a ruffian, he was not asked anything about the happenings and on the next morning, the mother of the accused, namely, Jumuki Jani (P.W.3) having seen her daughter-in-law Chandrama lying dead, she raised hullah. Hearing the hullah, Laxman (P.W.7), Damu Jani and others went to the spot and found marks violence over the body, head and face of the wife of the accused. The villagers assembled at the spot and the accused when was about to leave the place, he was detained by Upendra Naik, Braja Mohan Choudhury (P.W.2) and Tulasi Mandal Nayak Page 2 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -3- (P.W.4). The accused., on being asked about the happenings, he confessed his guilt and disclosed to have caused the death of his wife by striking her in lathi and crushing her head by a stone. He also showed them the lathi and stone lying in the room. Miluku Muduli then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in- Charge of Semiliguda P.S.. The IIC treating the same as FIR (Ext.5), registered the case and took up investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.9) examined the Informant (P.W.1) and recorded his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Having visited the spot, the I.O. (P.W.9) prepared the spot map (Ext.5). The I.O. (P.W.7) held inquest over the dead bodies and prepared the report (Ext.1) and sent the same for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.9) seized the sample earth and blood stained earth under seizure list (Ext.6). The wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased were seized under seizure list (Ext.9 & Ext.10) respectively. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
4. Learned S.D.J.M., Koraput, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of said offence and after observing the Page 3 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -4- formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total nine (9) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant is P.W.1 whereas P.Ws.2, 4, 5, 7 & 8 are the post occurrence witnesses but then the accused is said to have confessed his guilt and disclosed the manner of committing the crime. P.W.3 is the mother of the accused and P.W.6 is the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The I.O., at the end has come to the witness box, as P.W.9.
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 13. Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.4); inquest report (Ext.1); spot map (Ext.5); and the post mortem report (Ext.2). The reports of the Chemical Examiner had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.13.
6. The accused, having taken the plea of complete denial and false implication, has, however, not tendered any evidence in support of the same.
Page 4 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -5-
7. Mr.C.R.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court, without appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4, 7 & 8 in their proper perspective and scrutinizing the same in the backdrop of the other available circumstances emanating from the totality of the evidence recorded during trial, has committed the error in holding that the prosecution has established the charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime that he committed the murder of his wife but the Trial Court having relied upon the evidence as to the circumstances simply the relationship between the two and that the dead body was recovered from the house of het accused ought not to have held the accused guilty of committing the murder of his wife. In view of all these above, he urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are impugned in this Appeal, are liable to be set aside.
8. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt of the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, submitted that here the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4, 7 & 8 when read together with the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.6), leaves no room to doubt that it is none other than the accused, who is the author of the crime and has caused her death having mercilessly assaulted his wife. Page 5 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -6-
9. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to 9) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13.
10. Before going to address the rival submission of the parties, let us have a look at the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.6), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. It is his evidence that he had noticed deep penetrative injury on the lateral side of right eye of 1" length and 1" depth; deep cut injury on left cheek of size of 1" length and ½" depth; deep cut injury on left side of forehead of size 1" lenth and ½" depth and a penetrating injury on chin besides the bruise on the neck of size of 5" lengh and ½" breadth, bruise over chest of size 7" length and ½" breadh, bruise on left shoulder of size 4" length and 3"
depth as also and bruise over right shoulder of size 4" length and 3 inch depth as also 4 to 5 bruises on back with average size of 7"
length and ½ breadth with both the knee abraded on wet bearing area and one compression mark on the face of left temporal area. On dissection, fracture of left parietal bone over left temporal bone had been noticed with clotted blood inside intracranial region of left side and clotted blood also found inside frontal sinus, ethmoidal sinus and nasal cavity. It was also noticed by P.W.6 that there was intracranial membrance of left side found Page 6 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -7- tear due to depression fracture of parietal bone of left side and intracranial brain haemorrhage on the left side of size 4cm length and 6 cm breadh. As per his evidence, the death was on account of penetrating injury on the different sides of the face and depression injury over left face and left carnial resulting intracranial haemorrhage causing a space occupying mass in brain causing shock and death of the deceased. The penetrating injury on the face and depression injury on the head were grievous and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death as has been stated by P.W.6. With all these, he deposed that all such injuries were ante mortem in nature and the death was homicidal. The Doctor (P.W.6) having examined the seized stone and bamboo stick as well as crow-bar has stated that such injuries were possible by those. The findings of the Doctor (P.W.6) have in no way been questioned. With such evidence on record as well as the evidence of other witnesses, who had seen the deceased with the external injuries on her body and the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.9), who had held the inquest over the dead body and had noted the injuries with their seats in the inquest report (Ext.1), we are left with no option but to concur with the finding that the deceased met homicidal death.
11. Having held as above, the question next arises as to the complicity of the accused as the author of such injuries in intentionally causing the death of Chandrama. Page 7 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -8-
The deceased is the wife of the accused and admittedly they were living together. The evidence of P.W.3, who is the mother of the accused and the mother-in-law of the deceased is to the effect that she was residing separately from the accused, who with his wife were staying in one house. She (P.W.3) was staying on the verandah of the house of one of their co-villagers. She has stated that in the morning, she went to their house to get her daughter- in-law (deceased) awake and when she reached near the house, she found that the door was open. Having entered inside the house, she saw the accused sitting and his wife lying dead with bleeding injuries on the front side of the head. She has assertively stated that seeing that, when she raised hullah, villagers arrived and they having asked the accused, he told "MORO MAIKINAKU MU MARIDELI" (Have killed my wife). This P.W.3, being cross-examined, has stated that when she entered into the house, the accused asked his wife woke up as by then, she do not know that his wife was dead. Thus, the evidence of this witness goes to show that the accused was very much in the house by the side of his wife, who was lying dead and none-else was there in that house when it has not been elicited from her that the accused at that moment had given an explanation as to what happened to his wife.
One of the co-villager of the accused has been examined as P.W.2. He has stated that hearing hullah, when they went to the Page 8 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015 -9- house of the accused, some villagers caught hold of the accused and made him seat in front of his house and on being asked, the accused told to have killed his wife by means of bamboo stick and stone. The evidence of this witness that he had been to the house of the accused and saw the accused there and he then disclosed as to what happened to his wife and how she died appears to have not been shaken in any manner. Such a conduct on the part of a co-villager, under the circumstance, is normal and also shows his responsiveness.
Same is the evidence of P.W.4, who states that the accused was sitting near the dead body of the deceased and on being asked as to why his wife died, he told to have killed her. It has also been deposed by P.W.4 that the stone, lathi and crow-bar were lying near the dead body of the deceased. During cross- examination, she has further asserted that he himself had asked the accused as to how his wife died and the reply came from the accused that he had killed her. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had never confessed to have caused the death of his wife. The cross-examination appears to have not been directed to demolish the evidence of this witness what he stated in chief.
Further evidence has fallen from P.W.7, who is the neighbour of the accused. He has stated that when he returned to his house on that day, he found the accused assaulting his wife and took her inside the house by catching hold the tuff of her Page 9 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015
- 10 -
heir. It is further stated that the accused, having taken his wife inside the house, continued to assault her and when he intervened, the accused threatened him to assault. It is further stated that on the next morning, he was told by the mother of the accused that the wife of the accused was lying dead in their house with injuries on her head, which he saw when he went with other villagers to the place.
The above discussed evidence of the prosecution witnesses thus lead us to accept that the accused, having assaulted his wife, had taken her inside the house and continuously assaulted her. The evidence is also acceptable on the score that the accused in the morning was seen inside the house by the side of his wife, which has not only been stated by his own mother (P.W.3), who had no axe to grind against the son but also others and then they had seen the bamboo stick as well as stone lying in the room. It is also borne out from the evidence that the accused before the villagers disclosed to have killed his wife in reply to the usual query as to how all happened.
With the above evidence on record, we hold that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for committing the murder of his wife.
12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th August, 2015 Page 10 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015
- 11 -
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.176 of 2012 are hereby confirmed.
(D. Dash) Judge G.Satapathy, J. I Agree.
(G.Satapathy) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 07-Dec-2023 12:31:13 Page 11 of 11 JCRLA No.64 of 2015