Orissa High Court
Sonu Challan vs State Of Orissa on 7 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ORI 122
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
JCRLA No. 35 Of 2005
From the judgment and order dated 27.03.2003 passed by the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in Session Case No.07 of 2001.
----------------------------
Sonu Challan ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ...... Respondent
For Appellant - Mr. Hemanta Kumar Tripathy
For Respondent - Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra
(Addl. Govt. Advocate)
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 07.03.2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Bench The appellant Sonu Challan faced trial in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in Sessions Case
No.07 of 2001 for the offence punishable under section 302 of
2
the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 20.07.2000 at
about 5.00 p.m. in village Totaguda, he committed murder of his
younger brother's wife namely Laxmi Challan (hereafter 'the
deceased').
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 27.03.2003 found the appellant guilty under section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information
report lodged by P.W.1 Subash Challan, husband of the deceased
before the officer in charge of Orkel police station on 21.07.2000
is that on that day at about 2.00 p.m., while he had been to
village Gopalpur to the house of Sima Sahukar to get some loan
amount from him and waiting there, at about 6.00 p.m., he got
the message from one Shyama Kirsani that while the deceased
was working in the maize field, at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant
who is his elder brother came there being armed with a tangia
and threatened the deceased and asked her about the
whereabouts of the informant. When the deceased replied that
the informant was not there in the house, the appellant dealt
four to five blows by means of the tangia which he was holding
on the neck, back, shoulder and head of the deceased, as a
3
result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the
spot. After killing the deceased, the appellant left that place
holding tangia. Hearing this news from Shyama Kirsani, the
informant rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying dead
in the maize field and she had sustained bleeding injuries on
different parts of the body. It is further stated in the first
information report that the assault was seen by P.W.2 Raila Sisa
and one Shyama Sisa and others. It is further stated that since
five to six years back, the appellant had wrongfully confined the
informant, the deceased and his own wife inside a room and set
fire to the house locking the door from outside and in that case
he was in custody for about nine to ten months.
On the basis of such first information report, Orkel
P.S. Case No.51 of 2000 was registered under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code against the appellant. One Gopinath Kirsani,
S.I. of police attached to Orkel police station took up
investigation of the case and he prepared the inquest report vide
Ext.1, effected seizure of blood stained earth and sample earth
from the spot vide seizure list Ext.2. He sent the dead body for
post mortem examination and also effected seizure of the
wearing apparels of the deceased under seizure list Ext.3. The
appellant was arrested and on his production, one blood stained
4
tangia was seized vide seizure list Ext.9. The wearing apparels of
the appellant were also seized under seizure list Ext.10. The spot
map was prepared. The seized exhibits were forwarded to
R.F.S.L., Berhampur through learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri and
chemical examination report (Ext.13) was received. P.W.11
Laxmidhar Dalai took over charge of investigation and on
completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against
the appellant on 16.11.2000.
3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was
committed to the Court of Session for trial observing due
committal procedure where the appellant was charged under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.11.2001 and since he
refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried,
the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and
establish his guilt.
4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the
prosecution examined eleven witnesses.
P.W.1 is the informant of the case and husband of
the deceased. He is a post-occurrence witness.
P.W.2 Raila Sisa, P.W.3 Tulsa Khara, P.W.4 Nila
Khemudu and P.W.5 Bhagaban Sisa are the eye witnesses to the
occurrence.
5
P.W.7 Dr. Sashibhusan Mohapatra conducted post
mortem examination over the dead body of deceased on
22.7.2000 and he proved the post mortem report vide Ext.4 and
also on the query made by the investigation officer, he gave his
opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible
by tangia which was produced before him.
P.W.11 is the investigating officer. The rest of the
witnesses are formal witnesses.
The prosecution also exhibited thirteen documents.
Ext.1 is the inquest report, Exts.2 and 3 are the seizure lists,
Ext.4 is the post mortem report, Ext.5 is the report on query,
Ext.6 is the command certificate, Ext.7 is the dead body challan,
Ext.8 is the first information report, Exts.9 and 10 are the
seizure lists, Ext.11 is the spot map, Ext.12 is the forwarding
letter and Ext.13 is the chemical examination report.
The prosecution also proved two material objects,
M.O.I is the lathi and M.O.II is the stone.
5. The defence plea of one of denial.
6. The learned trial Court mainly relying upon the
statements of the eye witnesses coupled with the medical
evidence found the appellant guilty under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
6
7. The case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon
the acceptance and otherwise of the evidence of the four eye
witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as the evidence of the
doctor (P.W.7) who conducted the post mortem examination.
First, coming to the prosecution case that the
deceased met with a homicidal death, it appears that apart from
the inquest report (Ext.1), the evidence of P.W.7 who was the
Medical Officer of Khairput C.H.C. is very much relevant. On
22.7.2000 he conducted post mortem examination over the dead
body of the deceased and noticed the following external
injuries:-
(i) Incised wound 3½" x 1/4" over left side neck 4"
below the left ear;
(ii) Incised wound 3/2" x 1/4" over right side neck
1/2" below to right ear;
(iii) Incised wound 2½" x 1/2" over occipital part
(back of the head);
(iv) Incised wound 2½" x 1/2" x 1/4" over backside
below left scapula;
(v) Incised wound 2½" 1/2" x 1/4" over left side
neck below to the left ear.
7
He opined that all the injuries were caused by sharp
cutting weapon. He also found that the scalp of the occipital part
was cut and brain matters came out and liquefaction of brain had
started and the muscles of neck were cut corresponding to
injuries nos.(i), (ii) & (iv). He also noticed fracture of the skull
bone corresponding to injury No.(iii). He opined the cause of
death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and intracranial
haemorrhage leading to cardiorespiratory failure which led to
shock and death. He opined the cause of death was homicidal
and the injuries were antemortem in nature. On a query being
made by the investigating officer with reference to the possibility
of injuries sustained by the deceased with the weapon of offence
i.e. seized tangia, he gave his opinion that the injuries were
possible by tangia as per his report Ext.5. He further stated that
the injuries can cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Mr. Hemanta Kumar Tripathy, learned counsel for the
appellant has not brought out any infirmity in the evidence of the
doctor (P.W.7). Thus on the basis of the inquest report (Ext.1)
as well as the post mortem report findings and the evidence of
the doctor (P.W.7), we are of the view that the prosecution has
successfully proved that the deceased met with a homicidal
8
death and the finding on that score by the learned trial Court is
quite justified.
8. Coming to the evidence of the eye witnesses, P.W.2
Raila Sisa has stated that his house was close to the house of the
deceased and on the date of occurrence during afternoon, the
appellant came and committed murder of the deceased by giving
tangia blows on different parts of her body and she met with an
instantaneous death at the spot and that the deceased had
sustained bleeding injuries on either side of her neck. He
specifically stated to have seen the murder of deceased which
took place in his presence. In the cross-examination, he has
stated to have seen the assault on the deceased as well as the
appellant leaving from the place of occurrence. Nothing has been
elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. Thus
the evidence of P.W.2 has remained unshaken.
P.W.3 Tulsa Khara has stated that she was present in
the house of the deceased when the appellant came and dealt a
stick blow to her and she fell down and then the appellant went
towards the maize field holding a tangia and a kati where he
killed the deceased by causing bleeding injuries by means of
tangia. She further stated that the appellant gave tangia blows
on either side of neck and other parts of the body of the
9
deceased in her presence for which the deceased met with an
instantaneous death on account of profuse bleeding from her
neck injuries and other injuries. In the cross- examination, P.W.3
has stated that she was in the house of the deceased and the
deceased was then working in the maize field which was close to
her house and the occurrence took place at the time of sunset.
She further stated that there was no quarrel between the
appellant and the deceased prior to the assault on the deceased.
On being recalled by the Public Prosecutor, she identified M.O.I
to be the tangia with which the deceased was assaulted by the
appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to
point out any contradictions or improbability feature in the
evidence of P.W.3 and thus her evidence has also remained
unshaken.
P.W.4 Nila Khemudu has stated that he was present
in his house when he saw the appellant came holding a tangia
and straightway went near the deceased who was there in the
maize field close to her bari and dealt tangia blows on different
parts of her body. He further stated that the appellant dealt taiga
blows on the neck, back and other portion of the body for which
the deceased met with an instantaneous death then and there.
In the cross-examination, the defence has drawn his attention
10
with reference to his previous statement that he had not made
any statement before the investigating officer to have seen the
appellant committing the murder of the deceased by giving
tangia blows on her person. Though the witness has denied but
this contradiction has been proved through the evidence of the
investigating officer (P.W.11) who has stated P.W.4 has not
stated in his statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
that he himself had seen the occurrence. Thus when P.W.4 has
not stated before the police to have seen the occurrence and for
the first time he is deposing in that respect during trial, we are
not inclined to place any reliance on his evidence as an eye
witness to the occurrence.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.5 Bhagaban Sisa, he
has stated that hearing hullah, he immediately rushed to the
spot and saw the appellant going away from the spot after killing
the deceased and he was armed with tangia. He further stated
that out of fear he did not try to catch hold of the appellant as he
was holding the tangia in his hand. In the cross- examination,
P.W.5 has stated that the time of occurrence was not dark. He
further stated that he did not know the cause of dispute between
the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence. The
learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out
11
anything from the evidence of P.W.5 that his evidence is not
acceptable.
Thus on a cumulative effect of reading the evidence
of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 indicate that even though the version of
P.W.4 as an eye witness to the occurrence is not acceptable, but
the evidence of the eye witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 coupled with
the statement of P.W.5 to have seen the appellant leaving the
spot with the tangia has remained unshaken. The version of the
doctor (P.W.7) who conducted post mortem examination indicate
that there were injuries on different vital parts of the body of the
deceased and all those injuries were possible by the tangia which
was seized at the instance of the appellant. Moreover, the
chemical examination report which is marked as Ext.13 shows
that the seized tangia was containing blood of human origin of
group 'B' and the wearing apparels of the appellant which were
seized were also containing blood of human origin of group 'B'
which was the blood group of the deceased. The manner in which
the appellant came to the spot with tangia and assaulted a
defenceless lady mercilessly on different vital parts of her body
which led to her instantaneous death at the spot without any
kind of provocation from her and since the injuries were opined
12
to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, it
clearly proves the intention of the appellant to commit murder.
We are thus of the view that the learned trial Court
has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has
successfully established the charge under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt against the
appellant and we find no perversity in such finding.
It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra,
learned Additional Government Advocate that he has received
information from the Office of Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail,
Koraput vide letter dated 07.01.2020 that the appellant has been
released under Premature Rule on 07.01.2020 as per Order
No.219 dated 04.01.2020 by the Government of Odisha, Law
Department. The letter dated 07.01.2020 of the Senior
Superintendent Circle Jail, Koraput filed by the learned counsel
for the State is taken on record.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the
view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellant
guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The
impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity and the same is
13
upheld. We find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the
JCRLA stands dismissed.
Lower Court records with a copy of this judgment be
sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information.
..............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
................................ B.P. Rourtray, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 7th March, 2020/Pravakar/Sisir