Orissa High Court
Jatia Munda vs State Of Odisha on 9 October, 2023
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.604 of 2014
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 10th October, 2012 passed by the
learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.51/101 of 2012.
----
Jatia Munda .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.Chitta Ranjan Sahu
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.P.K.Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 26.09.2023 : Date of Judgment:09.10.2023
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in
question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.51/101 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.17 of 2012 corresponding to Page 1 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -2- Nayakote P.S. Case No.01 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Keonjhar.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment of five (5) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the office under section 307 of the IPC, with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 07.01.2012 around 5.00 p.m, one Narada Munda (P.W.2), who is the younger brother of Patka Munda (P.W.10) presented a written report being scribed by one Ramakana Dangua (P.W.1) with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Nayakote Police Station (P.S.) stating therein that on the previous evening, this accused Jatia Munda and his son Gopal Munda (since acquitted) inflicted injuries on the person of Tasa Munda and Patka Munda (P.W.10) by means of a tangia.
Page 2 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -3-
Receiving the said report, the IIC (P.W.8) treated the same as the FIR (Ext.1) and upon registration of the case, took up investigation.
3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.8) immediately recorded the statement of the informant (P.W.2) and the scribe of the FIR (P.W.1). The I.O. (P.W.8) then having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.8). He arrested this accused and his son Gopal (since acquitted). This accused, namely, Jatia, while in custody, pursuant to their statement, gave recovery of the weapon of offence (tangia), which has been seized under seizure list (Ext.2). He seized the blood stained earth and sample earth under seizure list Ext.9. The wearing apparels of the accused persons were seized under the seizure lists (Ext.10 & 11). The I.O. (P.W.8) had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.3). The dead body of the deceased was the sent for postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.8) submitted the Final Form placing this accused and his son, namely, Gopal Munda (since acquitted) to face the Trial for commission of the offence under sections 302/307/34 of the IPC.
Page 3 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -4-
4. Learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar, 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 offences against this accused and his son Gopal (Since acquitted).
5. In the Trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total twelve (12) witnesses. As already stated, the informant, who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.2. The scribe of the FIR (Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.Ws.3 & 4 are co-villagers of the accused persons. P.Ws.5 & 6 are the staffs of the P.S. and the witnesses to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.7. The I.O. of the case has come to the witness box as P.W.8. The eye witness to the occurrence is P.W.10 and P.W.11 is the wife of the deceased whereas P.W.12 is the Doctor, who had medically examined the injured person, namely, Patka Munda (P.W.10).
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 14. Important of those, are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.3); the spot map (Ext.8), and the post mortem report (Ext.6). Page 4 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -5-
6. The accused persons, in support of their plea of denial and false implication have, however, not tendered any evidence despite opportunity.
7. The Trial Court, having gone through the evidence and upon their scrutiny, while acquitting accused Gopal Munda of the charges, has found this accused Jatia Munda to be guilty for commission of the offence under section 302/307/34 of the IPC in intentionally causing the death of Tasa Munda and attempting to commit the murder of Patka Munda (P.W.10).
8. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the prosecution case here is based on the solitary testimony of P.W.10. According to him, the Trial Court, without proper appreciation of P.W.10, in the backdrop of surrounding circumstances, which have emanated in evidence, has unjustifiably placed reliance upon said evidence in holding the prosecution to have established the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the evidence of P.W.10 if read as a whole would appear to be highly improbable and, therefore, in the absence of any material corroboration from independent sources to the evidence P.W.10 even though he is an injured witness and one of the victims, the Trial Court ought not to have held the accused guilty of commission of the offence under section 302/307 of the IPC.
Page 5 of 9CRLA No.604 of 2014 -6-
9. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while submitting all in favour of the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, contended that the evidence of P.W.10, who himself is an injured and the victim in the occurrence is wholly reliable. He further submitted that the P.W.10, having narrated the incident in a natural manner and that being free from any such form infirmity whatsoever the Trial Court has rightly held this accused guilty of coming the murder of Tasa Munda and having attempted to commit the murder of Patka Munda (P.W.10). He submitted that on scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Trial Court even though has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the role of the accused Gopal (since acquitted) in the said incident so as to be held liable for the offences for which he was standing charged that would not be the ground to hold that the positive version of P.W.10 in respect of the role played and act done by this accused Jatia is not reliable and acceptable.
10. Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to
12) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 14.
Page 6 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -7-
11. In the instant case, the star witness for the prosecution is P.W.10. who was injured in the said incident along with the deceased.
It is the settled position of law that if the court finds the evidence of the solitary witness to be of sterling quality, there is no bar for accepting the same as the basis for holding the offender guilty for the acts done by him in committing the offence. In the backdrop of the above, we now to proceed to examine the evidence of P.W.10. P.W.10 has stated that on the relevant date, during evening hours, this accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other and thereafter accused Jatia hacked the deceased by means of a tangia. It is further stated that accused Jatia dealt repeated blows on the head of the deceased by that tangia and when he (P.W.10) protested, he too was assaulted by accused Jatia by that tangia for which he (P.W.10) sustained bleeding injury. Although this witness has been cross-examined, we find absolutely no such material to have been elicited to raise any doubt with regard to his presence at the site where the incident took place. When he has stated to be present with the deceased and to have protested and then was also assaulted by this accused, said evidence is receiving full support from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.12). It is the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.12) that he, during his examination of P.W.10 at the request of the I.O., had noticed six incised wounds on his person. It is also Page 7 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -8- the evidence of the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Tasa that during the said examination, he noticed lacerated injuries near his left ear, corner of the right eye and right cheek. It is stated by him that on dissection, he had noticed crush injury on right parietal, left temporal and right parietal and right temporal region. With the above evidence, we again find the evidence of P.W.2, who has stated to have immediately rushed to the place and found deceased lying in a pool of blood and P.W.10, having been injured, was not having any sense and lying on the ground. It has been further stated by P.W.2 that P.W.10, when regained the sense, he narrated the incident that accused Jatia assaulted him and Tasa by that tangia. So, there comes the immediate disclosure of P.W.10 about the incident before P.W.2 and thus the question of later development of any sort in implicating this accused is totally ruled out. Although the prosecution through P.W.4 has sought to prove that accused Jatia had confessed to have committed the crime, yet even without accepting said evidence of P.W.4, the evidence of P.W.10, as discussed, which is receiving the corroboration from other evidence including the medical evidence, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for committing the offence under section 302/307 of the IPC.
Page 8 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014 -9-
Therefore, in our considered view, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal, are well in order and do not warrant interference.
12. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.51/101 of 2012 are hereby confirmed.
(D. Dash), Judge.
A.C.Behera, J. I Agree.
(A.C.Behera), Judge.
Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Oct-2023 17:19:08 Page 9 of 9 CRLA No.604 of 2014