Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. P.W.3 - Srikanta Naik, a co-villager, in his evidence on oath stated that the deceased Nila Naik is his father's elder brother. About 9 months back on the day of Holi festival, after playing Holi and taking meals, when he came out, he heard hulla. By that time Rajani Naik (the elder father's wife) was also present behind him. On hearing that hulla, he and Rajani rushed there and saw that the accused persons namely Jara, Chandra and Maniratha were chasing Nilamani with Lathi and tangia in their hands. All of a sudden when Nilamani turned back, Chandra dealt a lathi blow on his belly, and as he fell down, Mani handed over a taniga to Jara who exhorted blows to kill Nila. Jara dealt 3 to 4 blows on the neck of Nilamani, as a result the head of Nilamani got severed from his body, with which he raised outcry. According to the witness, the accused persons leaving the lathi at the spot fled away with the tangia towards Baunsuni.

17. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Defence, who stated with regard to the fact that, after his marriage, the accused Maniratha Guru to have resided in his in-laws' house at Sahajpal as illatum son-in-law and blessed with two children. D.W.1 is the wife of Maniratha. She deposed that the deceased Nila being the cousin brother of her husband was elder to him. Nila had two wives, namely Shubhra and Rajani. Police arrested her husband from her parental house at Sahajpal. Prior to the marriage, her husband was staying at Baidyanathpur along with her father-in-law and earning their livelihood from cultivation and bamboo crafts. According to the witnesses, at times he used to visit Baidyanathpur to see his father. She denied the suggestion of the prosecution to the effect that during festive occasion her husband used to visit Baidyanathpur. She denied any enmity with Balabhadra Naik, Rajani Naik, Srikanta Naik, Pradhan Naik, etc. She denied the suggestion of the prosecution that in the year 2007 on the day of Holi festival her husband was present in village Baidyanathpur and he along with other two accused persons namely Chandra and Jara chased the deceased Nila and that he was holding one tangia which he handed over to Jarasingh to exhort blows on Nila to kill him.

22. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the contrary held the impugned judgment to be absolutely correct and legal in all respect. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the evidence of the eye-witness account is consistent not only to the effect that the accused shared the common intention in causing the death of the deceased by exhorting blows by means of tangia with decapitation but also the fact that the circumstances establishing the fact that the accused persons chased the deceased on the blow being exhorted by Appellant No.1 Chandra Guru by means of lathi, that the deceased fell down where upon the Appellant No.2 - Jarasingh Guru gave blows on his neck severing the head from the body causing instantaneous death proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the evidence led by the witnesses being credible and the testimonies being not shaken in any manner, the same stands the test of a robust quality to inspire confidence to have implicit reliance on it. According to the learned counsel, the disclosure statement which has consistently been proved through the witnesses and documents coupled with the production of the weapon of offence well identified by the doctor overwhelmingly proves the case of the prosecution to deduce the Appellants to be its author and the ghastly murder squarely makes them liable for the punishment awarded by the trial court and requires no interference.

25. Next point that requires evaluation is whether the death of the decease is one within the ambit of section 300 IPC to adjudge the same as "murder" as held by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the Appellants, as discussed above, contended that the death is not "murder" but culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, as such, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law.

26. As discussed above, the three eye-witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 2, 3 & 7 have clearly and unambiguously narrated the manner in which the Appellants caused assault on the deceased. The intensity and the gravity with which the blow exhorted on the deceased by use of heavy weapon like "taniga" severing the head from the body, leaves no room to believe that the assailant had a very clear intention to do away with the life of the deceased instantaneously. The Doctor (P.W.9) in his evidence described the nature of injuries sustained is ghastly and fatal for being decapitated. The incisive cross-examination faced by the eye witnesses and the doctor from the side of the defence in respect to the manner of assault, intention in exhorting the assault and above all the circumstances enabling the witnesses to be at the scene of occurrence corroborating the prosecution case in minute detail could not be demolished in any manner. Rather the reply of the witnesses during cross examination reinforced their statements made on oath, which is so consistent and coherent that the credibility and worthiness of the witnesses cannot be questioned. The evidence brought by the prosecution to the effect that the deceased having entered hot exchange of words with Chandra Guru while was returning to his home had to bite the dust in the paddy filed of Raju Panda on being attacked by the Appellants, might be on a trivial issue but the motive appears to be clear that in retaliation to the demand of the deceased for the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) that the assailants got enraged and in order to wreak their vengeance decided to see him dead by any means. In all probabilities, the ocular version of the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence which firmly opined the death to be one of homicidal in nature resulting from decapitation, found conclusive to the fact that the Appellants had absolute intention and knowledge that the deceased would have no escape but to have the death instantaneously. On the face of such prolific evidence there is no evidence whatsoever to deduce anything contrary that the act of assault is the result of a sudden provocation and the amount of cruelty shown in the assault is so ghastly that it cannot be termed under any stretch of imagination to be an assault under heat of passion. The death of the deceased is, therefore, a "murder" within the meaning of Section 300 IPC as correctly held by the learned court below.