Orissa High Court
Landa @ Juria Pradhan vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 2012
Author: C.R. Dash
Bench: L. Mohapatra, C.R. Dash
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK.
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2003
Arising out of the judgment and order of sentence dated 03.12.2001
passed by Shri S.N. Sahoo, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhanjanagar-Aska in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2000, under Section
302, I.P.C.
----------
Landa @ Juria Pradhan ... Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa ... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Biswajit Nayak.
For Respondent : Mr. Sangram Das, Addl. Standing Counsel.
----------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L. MOHAPATRA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Argument : 16.04.2012 Date of Judgment : 16.04.2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Dash, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 03.12.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska at Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No.6 of 2000 (106/2000 GDC) convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to suffer R.I. for six months more.
22. The occurrence happened at about 6.00 P.M. on 01.10.1999. Informant (P.W.8) is the father of the deceased. Immediately on the same day the informant (P.W.8) at about 7.30 P.M. lodged report at Balipadar Out-Post, on the basis of which Station Diary Entry No.30, dated 01.10.1999 was made and the report was forwarded to Buguda P.S., which was received in Buguda P.S. at 9.00 A.M. on 02.10.1999.
The gist of the F.I.R. is that the informant (P.W.8) heard from some of the co-villagers like P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and others that his son- in-law (present appellant) has killed his (informant's) daughter Narmada by assaulting her with a 'Paniki' (kitchen-knife). Going to the spot, which is a public road, he (P.W.8) saw his daughter lying dead with bleeding injuries on various parts of her body. The villagers had, by then, captured and brought the appellant under their control. The appellant was armed with a 'Paniki' (kitchen-knife) and was threatening all saying that whoever dares to come to him would face the dire consequences. On the basis of the aforesaid report vide Ext.2, initial investigation was conducted by the A.S.I.-in-charge of Balipadar Out-Post (P.W.12) and subsequently on the next day the charge of investigation was taken up by O.I.C., Buguda P.S. (P.W.13), who, on completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the appellant implicating him in the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for uxoricide.
3. In course of the trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove the charge, out of whom P.W.6 is the only eye-witness to the occurrence, P.Ws.1 to 5 are co-villagers of the appellant, P.W.7 is the mother and P.W.8 is the father of the deceased, P.W.9 is a post-
3occurrence witness, P.W.10 is the mother of the appellant, P.W.11 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and P.Ws.12 and 13 are the I.Os.
4. The defence plea is one of complete denial, but none was examined by the defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.6 having testified to have been examined by the police after about seven to eight days of the occurrence and there being no explanation by the prosecution on that point, learned Trial Court erred in basing the conviction on his sole testimony, which goes uncorroborated. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, however, supports the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
6. Coming to the evidence of P.W.6, who is admittedly the sole eye-witness to the occurrence, it is found that it was about 5.00 P.M. on 01.10.1999 and he was coming on a bicycle from village Ramgarh to his village Dengapadar. Passing about one furlong from village Ramgarh, he happened to see deceased Narmada and appellant Landa @ Juria Pradhan proceeding towards village Dengapadar on the road. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.6 is a co-villager of P.W.8 (father of deceased Narmada) and the appellant belongs to Ramgarh, an adjacent village. Narmada was walking ahead of the appellant, and the appellant was following her carrying a 'Paniki' (kitchen-knife). Suddenly the appellant dealt blows with the sharp side of the 'Paniki' on the back of the neck of deceased Narmada with the iron portion, which was about one feet long, from her backside, as 4 a result of which she fell down. Thereafter the appellant dealt repeated blows with the sharp side of the 'Paniki' to Narmada. Evidence of P.W.11, the Medical Officer shows that the deceased had sustained about six incised wounds, out of which injury no.4 is an incised wound 8" x 2½" x 2" from ½" below the ear cutting to the back of the neck 5th cervical vertebra, large vessels, larynx and muscles. Aforesaid injury no.4 is the result of the first assault by the appellant, if we consider the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 11 together. Other five incised wounds might be the result of subsequent repeated blows by the appellant. The aforesaid injury no.4 along with internal injury no.1, which is shown to have cut major blood vessels of the left side of the neck along with larynx, are the fatal injuries. P.W.6 is therefore held to be corroborated by the Medical Officer (P.W.11). Further, P.W.6 can be held to have been corroborated by P.Ws.1, 4 and 9, who have testified that hearing commotion when they reached the spot, they heard the appellant declaring to have killed his wife and they also found the appellant shouting that whoever will venture to come near him, he would kill them. They also found the dead body of the deceased lying with bleeding injuries. Such fact also goes a long way to corroborate P.W.6, the sole eye-witness of the occurrence.
7. The evidence of P.W.6 is impugned as discreditable on the ground of his delayed examination. Though P.W.6, who is admittedly a rustic witness, was asked in his cross-examination about the date of his examination by the police and he replied that he was examined by the police after about 7 to 8 days of the occurrence, nothing on that score has been asked to the I.O., from whom at least an explanation could have been elicited by the defence to discredit 5 delayed examination of the sole eye-witness. Rather, on examination of the L.C.R., we found that P.W.6 has been examined on 02.10.1999 and on the very next day, i.e. on 03.10.1999 his statement has been forwarded to the Court of learned S.D.J.M. while forwarding the appellant, and it is further found that there is endorsement of the learned S.D.J.M. on the statement of P.W.6 on 03.10.1999. Such a fact belies the ground of challenge of the defence so far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned.
8. Taking a total view in the matter, on perusal of the evidence of the witnesses and specially the evidence of P.Ws.6, 11, 1, 4 and 9, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
........................
C.R. Dash, J.
........................
L. Mohapatra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 16th day of April, 2012. /Parida.