Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Dandasena vs State on 1 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ295
Author: S.C. Datta
Bench: A. Pasayat, S.C. Datta
JUDGMENT S.C. Datta, J.
1. This is an appeal from Jail by the convict Ratnakar Dandasen against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No. 172 of 1991 arising out of G. R. Case No. 252 of 1992 and Teluara P. S. Case. No. 47 of 1991. The convict faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') for intentionally causing the death of Sumanta Dandasena by means of an axe.
2. The prosecution case as un lded (sic) from the evidence of the witnesses is that the informant Srikara Dandasena of village Balisankra, P. S. Tolsera, in the district of Sundargarh is the elder brother of the accused Ratnakar Dandasena. On 4-6-91 at about 7 p.m. in the evening while the informant (PW-1) was sitting on a cot in his Court yard and his wife Dukhi Dandasena (PW-2) was sitting on the varandah and one 'Dibri' was bumingon the varandah, his younger brother with an axe came and sat near him on the cot. On enquiry by the informant, the accused told him that he was just returning after finishing his labour in the house of Daya Dandasena. When the informant asked him as to why he was moving with an axe, and asked him to go back to home. In the meantime, his wife with her children came there and asked the accused to return home. At this, accused got up from the cot and started returning home At that time, the nephew of the informant named Sumanta Dandasena came there with a radio and both the accused and Sumanta met face to face with each other. Sumanta asked the accused as to why he was moving here and there and requested him to accompany to his house to take 'Kusuma'. The accused agreed to accompany but suddenly dealt a blow on the neck of Sumanta by means of axe, as a result thereof, Sumanta fell down annd trembled. The accused gave several other blows to the deceased by means of axe. At this the informant (PW-1) shouted, and his wife came and noticed the incident. The wife of the accused also arrived there and protested. The accused went towards the house of Sujan Dandasena when PW-2, the wife of the informant snatched the axe from his hand. Thereafter, the accused fled away. Sumanta was taken inside the house with bleeding injuries on his head, back and neck. The villagers have been called and Sumanta was taken to the hospital but he died there. On the oral complaint of Srikara Dandasena a case was registered and investigation started. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted by the officer-in-charge and the convict was put to trial.
3. The defence is a plea of denial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. Of the witnesses, only PWs-1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is the informant. The deceased Sumanta Dandasena is his nephew. He is the son of his brother Sridhar Dandasena. He states that on the day of incident of about 7 p.m. in the evening after finishing his dinner he was sitting on a cot in the court yard. His wife was sitting on the varandah of the house. The accused came and sat near the cot. On enquiry by this witness the accused gave out that he had gone to the house of one Daya Dandasena for work and after finishing his work, he was going to the house. PW-1 requested him to go to his own house and while the accused was about to. return, Sumanta came with a radio. Suddenly the accused dealt two blows by means of an axe on the neck and another two blows on the back by means of the sharp side of the axe, causing bleeding injuries. Sumanta fell down on the ground. This witness has raised hullah. On hearing this his wife arrived at the spot. She caught hold of the waist and snatched away the axe from him. Thereupon, the accused fled away. The villagers were sent for and they arrived. Injured Sumanta was taken to Balisankara P. M. C. where some treatment was meted out to the deceased but he expired. This witness reported the incident to the police station on the next day and on the basis of the complaint, an FIR was lodged and investigation started. This witness was examined at length and there is nothing to show as to why he would depose falsely to implicate his nephew. It has been elicited from him during cross examination that there is some misunderstanding between the brothers over partitions of their land. PW-2 is the wife of PW-I. We notice from her testimony that on hearing the shouts of her husband, she came out and noticed the deceased lying on the ground and the accused was assaulting the deceased by means of an axe. She noticed injuries on the hand, neck and back of the deceased. She asserts that she caught hold of the accused and snatched away the axe and kept it below the roof of her paternal uncle's house and thereafter, the accused fled away. Here again nothing has been shown to indicate that this witness have told a lie. PW-8 is the Autopsy Surgeon. He performed post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 6-6-1991 at about 11 a.m. and noticed the following external injuries -
(1) Lacerated wound left pareital bone parallel and near to the fracture 3" x 1" skin depth, edged, irregular inverted. (2) abrasion right parietal bone parallel and 1" away from the parietal fracture 2" x 1" x 3" skin and bone open, brain matter exposed and swelling the hair. (3) lacerated wound left lateral side of neck 4" x 2" x6" below the ear and hairlines.
(4) lacerated wound right posterior wall of chest between the medial border of scapula and spine, 3" x 2" x 2". (5) lacerated wound below injury No. 4, 3" x 2" x 2" parallel to spine.
He also noticed the following internal injuries:-
(1) Outer table of skull bone fractured underneath, blood clot in between the meanings and brains and inside the brain matter; (2) fracture of the bone of skull underneath exposure of the brain matter, blood clots in between meanings and brain and incitive brain matter, brain injured; (3) muscles vessels, nerve including the servicle veribtral and spinal cord cut open, bloodclot incitive wound.
(4 and 5) muscles were cut open, blood clot incitive wound, heart intact, both chambers empty lungs were intact and pale stomach was empty, spleen, liver were intact, bladder was empty, scrotum and penis were intact but swollen due to process of putrification.
5. According to the autopsy Surgeon, all the injuries are ante mortem in nature. It is in his evidence that the injuries are homicidal in nature, and are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There is no plausible explanation as to why PWs-1 and 2 would go against the accused who is their close relation. There is not even the faintest suggestion that they have any grudge against the accused and as such have falsely implicated the accused. They are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not, however, advance any cogent argument in support of the appeal. He submits that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the motive for the murder. It may be remembered that when there is direct evidence of murder, motive is not required to be proved. Nevertheless, the defence has elicited from the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 that there was misunderstanding between the brothers over partition of their lands. The eye-witnesses' account of the incident are clear, cogent and conclusive. There cannot be any escape from the conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone who has caused the death of the victim. We are of definite opinion that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased and as such, we have no hesitation to conclude that the accused has been rightly convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. We upheld it. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.