Orissa High Court
Jinjuku Muduli @ Jhinku Muduli vs State Of Odisha on 11 August, 2023
Bench: D.Dash, S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.45 of 2016
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 13th January, 2016 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, in Criminal Trial
No.104 of 2012.
----
Jinjuku Muduli @ Jhinku Muduli .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mrs.Sonita Biswal
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.Dillip Kumar Mishra,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2023 : Date of Judgment:11.08.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in
question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13th January, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, in Criminal Trial No.104 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.95 of 2012 corresponding to Sunabeda P.S. Case Page 1 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -2- No.16 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 section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 13.02.2012, an entertainment program had been organized in the Village-Machhiliguda for observance of the birth of the first daughter of one Panu Muduli. Mali Muduli, who is the paternal uncle of Damburu Muduli (informant-P.W.4) with other villagers were participating in the feast. Damburu Muduli (informant-P.W.4) then went to his house to study. It was around 8.30 p.m., the aunt of Damburu (informant-P.W.4), namely, Gouri Muduli (P.W.2) went to him and informed him about the quarrel taking place between Mali Muduli and this accused, namely, Jinjuku. Hearing this, Damburu (informant-P.W.4) came out of his hosue and saw his uncle Mali Muduli lying on the ground with profuse bleeding from his chest. He subsequently came to know that the accused, who happens to be the cousin brother of Mali (deceased), having inflicted injuries on his chest by means of a pointed weapon has caused this situation. The injured then was Page 2 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -3- shifted to the Hospital to take a chance of survival. But, he was declared dead on arrival in the Hospital.
Damburu (informant-P.W.4) then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Sunabeda Police Station. Receiving the said written report, the I.I.C. treated the same as FIR and after registering the case, took up investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.14) examined the Informant (P.W.4). He visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.12), held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses, which led to preparation of the inquest report (Ext.2). During his visit, he collected the sample earth and blood stained earth and prepared the seizure list (Ext.13). The dead body of the deceased was the sent for postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The accused, on that day, was arrested around 3.00 p.m., and it is said that he, while in custody, had disclosed that the Daa (sickle) had been kept on the thatch of his house The disclosure statement of the accused has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.4 whereas the seizure list in respect of the seizure of Daa (sickle) has been marked as Ext.3. the accused was then forwarded in custody to Court. The opinion of the Doctor, having been sought for as to the possibility of the injuries noticed upon the dead body of the deceased by means of Daa Page 3 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -4- (sickle) came in the affirmative. The incriminating articles were then sent for chemical examination through Court. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14) submitted the Final Form 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 offences 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 aforesaid offence against the accused.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total fourteen (14) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, P.W.4 is the informant, who happens to be the nephew of the deceased (son of elder brother of the deceased), who had lodged the report (Ext.1), which triggered the investigation. P.W.1 is a co- villagers and a post occurrence witness. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased P.W.10 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased whereas P.W.13 is the Doctor, who had medically examined the accused. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) is P.W.14.
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 16. Page 4 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -5- Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.2); post mortem report (Ext.8); the spot map (Ext.12); and the chemical examiner's report (Ext.16). The statement of the accused before giving recovery of sickle (M.O.I) has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.3.
6. The accused, in support of his defence of denial and false implication, has not tendered any evidence.
7. The Trial Court, on going through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his report (Ext.8) as also the evidence of other witnesses including the informant (P.W.4), has arrived at a conclusion that Mali (deceased) met a homicidal death. In fact, said aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that is also the position before us in this Appeal.
8. It is the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10), who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, that he had noticed three external incised stab wounds on the chest region of the deceased and he too had noticed the corresponding internal injuries, when he went for dissection. According to him, all such injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death of the deceased was homicidal. He has further stated that the death of the deceased was on account of massive haemorrhage due to stab injuries on vital organs like Page 5 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -6- heart and lungs. It is also his evidence that such injuries are possible by the seized sickle (M.O.I), which he examined by accepting the request of the I.O. (P.W.14), which he had opined under Ext.9.
With such version of the Doctor (P.W.10), we also find the evidence of the I.O (P.W.14) that during inquest, he had noticed such external injuries, which he had noted in his report (Ext.2). Other witnesses have also stated that they had seen the deceased with such injuries. In view of all such unchallenged overwhelming evidence on record, we find absolutely no difficulty to concur with the finding of the Trial Court that the death of Mali (deceased) was homicidal.
9. Mrs.Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the prosecution here when relies upon the version of P.Ws.8, 9 & 12, the Trial Court, without critically examining their evidence, taking due care and observing the caution, has committed the error in holding the accused guilty of the charge under section 302 of the IPC in intentionally causing the death of Mali Muduli (deceased). She further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.8, 9 & 12 ought to have been taken into account with the evidence of other witnesses and when their evidence do not match with one another in respect of the material facets of the case, the Trial Court ought not to have taken said evidence as the Page 6 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -7- basis of convicting the accused for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
10. Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of the Trial Court, submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.8. 9 & 12 stand rock solid and, therefore, has been rightly held to be enough by the Trial Court in concluding that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In order to judge the sustainability of the finding of guilt recorded against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, let us start with the evidence of P.W.8. She is a co-villagers and as it appears, is having no special affinity either for the accused or for the deceased. She states that during that night, she too was witnessing the NACHA (Dance), which was going on in front of the house of Damburu Muduli (informant-P.W.4). It is stated that the deceased was then watching said NACHA (Dance) when accused came by covering his body with a Chadar (Shawl) and he was holding the Daa (Sickle), which he concealed under that Chadar. It is further stated that all of a sudden, the accused assaulted the deceased by means of that Daa (sickle) and ran away from the spot. His evidence is that on account of such stab blow, Mali Muduli (deceased), sustained bleeding injury on his chest and died at the spot. Be it stated that the accused and the Page 7 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -8- deceased are two brothers and their houses adjoin one another. This witness, during cross-examination, has affirmatively asserted that the accused, stabbing the deceased by means of Daa (sickle), had been seen by her. The only contradiction appears in her evidence is that she had not stated before the police during her examination, in course of investigation that the accused had come there by covering his body with a Chadar (Shawl). But, that in our considered view, is not of that significance so as to adversely view the evidence of P.W.8 when according to us, in the situation in which the incident took place when a person, seeing the incident immediately states about the happenings, it is not uncommon of unlikely that this part as to what the assailant was wearing, if not stated that state of mind would put his/her main version as not credible. Furthermore, we find that the evidence of P.W.9, who states to have seen the occurrence when he was witnessing the NACHA (Dance) provides full support as to the role played by the accused when he states that the accused pierced a Daa (sickle) on the chest of Mali Muduli (deceased) resulting his fall. Both these witnesses, having been cross- examined, we find no such material to have surfaced to create any doubt, in our mind, with regard to their presence at the spot. It is also not seen that they had any axe to grind against the accused and as such, no reason is given as to why they would falsely rope in the accused from amongst such good number of Page 8 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016 -9- persons, who had gathered to watch the NACHA (Dance) when such evidence also find full corroboration from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10), who had conducted the autopsy and noticed all such injuries on the chest region of the deceased and has said that such injuries are possible by that Daa (Sickle).
In addition to this, we also find the evidence of P.W.12, which is a little more elaborative when she has stated that she had seen the accused coming to the spot covering a Chadar (Shawl) on his body and then, all of a sudden gave blow on the chest of the deceased by means of Daa (sickle). That is completely in tune with the evidence of P.W.8. The criticism made against this witness is again with regard to the accused putting up Chadar (Shawl), but that, in view of our early discussion and reason, does not stand to be adversely taken note of that such omissions in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., which are usually brief would not amount to material contradiction so as to discard their evidence regarding their presence.
The seized Lungi and Gamuccha from the possession of the accused, being chemically examined, it has been ascertained that human blood of Group-A, which is blood group of the deceased, had stuck not only on those wearing apparels but also on the Daa (sickle-M.O.I) and the nail clippings of the accused, which have not been explained.
Page 9 of 10CRLA No.45 of 2016
- 10 -
In view of the above clear, cogent and acceptable evidence on record, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused by holding that the prosecution has proved the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13th January, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, in Criminal Trial No.104 of 2012 are hereby confirmed.
(D. Dash), Judge.
Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi), Judge.
Basu Page 10 of 10 CRLA No.45 of 2016