Jagarao Kanjaka Vs State Of Orissa

D.Dash, J

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12th April, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. No.64 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.73 of 2010 corresponding to K. Singhpur P.S. Case No.13 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Rayagada.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/34 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment foe one (1) year for commission of the said offence.

Prosecution Case:-

On 21.02.2010 around 10.00 p.m., one Lachiga Kadraka, the husband of Lakam Kadraka along with Urlaka Ramesh had been to the house of the accused Sindhu Kanjaka, which was situated in front of the house of Ramesh Urlaka in order to take liquor. They took liquor worth of Rs.10/-. Thereafter, Lachiga and Ramesh asked for more liquor. Sindhu Kanjaka then refused to give liquor without payment and abused them in filthy language. Thereafter, Jagarao Kanjaka, the son of Sindhu Kanjaka arrived and both of them abused Lachiga and Remesh in filthy language. At that time, accused Sindhu was holding a lathi and Jagarao holding an axe. Near the house of one Siman Kausalya, under a Tamarind tree, accused Sindhu inflicted lathi blow on the head of Lachiga resulting his fall and leading to loss of sense. Though the Informant (P.W.9) and Ramesh were shouting, they did not pay any heed to their words. It is stated that then accused Jagarao inflicted one cut blow at the neck of Lachiga causing bleeding Seeing the incident, the Informant (P.W.9) called the villagers and took Lachiga to the Verandah of the house of Siman Kausalya. They saw bleeding injury on the neck of Lachiga, who some time thereafter, died. Sindhu Kanjaka and Jagarao (accused) fled away from the spot.

Lakhna Kadraka (Informant-P.W.9) then lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of K. Singhpur P.S. The IIC, treating the same as FIR (Ext.9), and upon registration of the case, took up investigation.

In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.10) examined the Informant (P.W.9) and other witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Having visited the spot, the I.O. (P.W.10) prepared the spot map (Ext.10). He (P.W.10) held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report (Ext.1) and sent the same for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.10) seized the sample earth and bloodstained earth under seizure list (Ext.4). It is stated that the accused, while in police custody, gave the statement to have concealed the weapon and stated that if he would be taken to the place, he would give recovery of the same. Pursuant to the statement, the accused is said to have led the I.O. (P.W.10) and other witnesses in giving recovery of the weapon, which was seized under seizure list (Ext.6). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under sections 294/302/34 of the IPC.

Learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, 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 offence against the accused.

The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total thirteen (13) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the informant, who happens to be the wife of the deceased is P.W.9 whereas P.W.8 is her son. P.W.1 is a witness to the inquest. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence, who had gone to the house of the accused to take liquor. P.Ws.3, 4, 5 & 7 are the independent eye witnesses. P.W.6 is the scribe of the FIR. P.W.10 is the I.O. whereas the Scientific Officer has been examined as P.W.11. P.W.12 is the police constable and the Doctor, who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.13.

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 22. Out of those; important are the FIR (Ext.9); inquest report (Ext.1); and the post mortem report (Ext.22). The reports of the Chemical Examiner has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.21.

The accused, having taken the plea of complete denial and false implication, has, however, not tendered any evidence in support of the same.

Mr.I. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses ought not to have been relied upon by the Trial Court in holding the accused guilty of inflicting the fatal blow upon the deceased by means of axe. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 4 being read in entirety would reveal that they had not seen the happenings in the said incident. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.5, 7, 8 & 9 being not in conformity with one another and as each of them has variedly sated and there appears inconsistencies as well as contradictions therein, the Trial Court has gone wrong in holding the prosecution to have established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of all these above, it was urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are impugned in this Appeal, are liable to be set aside.

Mrs. S. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt of the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, submitted that the evidence of all the above prosecution witnesses are wholly consistent and there is no variance on the material parts.

Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to 13) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 22.

The death of Lachiga Kadraka is found to have been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.13) and other witnesses including the I.O. (P.W.10). In fact, that aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that has also been the situation before us.

The Doctor (P.W.13), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, had noticed the chopped wound at the right neck just above the medial 1/3rd of right clavicle of 7 cm X 5 cm and a bruise of size 4 cm X 2 cm on the left fronto parietal area of skull. On dissection, he has noted that there was injury to the scalenus anterior, inferior belly of omohyoid and platizima. He has also noticed that the carotid sheath was torn which includes common carotid artery internal jugular vein and bhugus nerve. Dissecting the brain, it has found the left frontal brain to be contused and with a large haematoma around it.

The I.O. (P.W.10), during his inquest, has also noted the same in his report (Ext.1). Other witnesses have stated about such injuries to have seen on the body of the deceased. With these evidence on record, we find the prosecution to have proved the death of the deceased to be homicidal.

Now, the question arises as to who is the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased.

P.W.2 although has been examined as an eye witness to the occurrence, during cross-examination, in his evidence has negated his status as such when he is found to have sated the accused, namely, Jagarao had quarreled with some people at that place and since a tussle between the accused and deceased started, he left the place out of fear. When such statement is taken into account, his evidence in chief to have seen the accused Jagarao assaulting the deceased by means of a tangia stands believed.

P.W.4 when has stated to have seen the accused Jagarao giving tangia blow on the deceased, it is seen that he has not stated the fact that the accused persons were chasing the deceased during the incident and that accused Jagarao was holding a tangia while chasing the deceased during his examination under section 161 Cr.P.C. He had also stated before the I.O. (P.W.10) that the Informant (P.W.9) had called him while he was going to sleep and disclosed about the incident. This has been proved through the I.O. (P.W.10). The evidence of this witness, being for the first time in Trial implicating the accused with the authorship of the fatal injury upon the deceased would be unsafe to be relied upon. However, going through the evidence of P.Ws.5, 7, 8 & 9, we find all of them to have stated in the same vein that the accused finally inflicted the blow by means of a tangia on the neck of the deceased. Despite cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from them to raise any doubt in mind as to their presence nor we find any variance in the evidence of all these four witnesses on the material aspects of the case particularly as regards the role played by the accused Jaga Rao.

The report of the Chemical Examiner reveals that human blood of Group-A were found on the seized axe as well as the wearing apparels of the deceased and the accused Jagaarao.

On a conspectus of analysis of the evidence hereinabove, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused that he has committed the murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12th April, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. No.64 of 2010, are hereby confirmed.

Since the accused, namely, Jagarao Kanjaka is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to serve out the sentence.

.…………………………….