Kara Majhi vs State Of Odisha

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th November, 2004 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.137/10 of 2003/04 arising out of G.R. Case No.165 of 2003 whereby the trial Court has convicted the present Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution is that at around 5 pm on 3rd March, 2003 (the day of Shivratri), the deceased went to the paddy field of one Pahalla Bej to collect some wood since one Akashia tree was lying there. The deceased, Dalu Mahanta, was at that time in the company of his wife Mana Mohanta, (PW-2), Bada Majhi (PW-4) and Madha Majhi (PW-3), the wife of Bada Majhi. Further, the case of the prosecution is that in the presence of PWs-2, 3 and 4 upon hearing the deceased say that he was going to use the Akashia tree for his own purpose, the Appellant who was holding an axe, got furious and dealt blows on the head of the deceased repeatedly. When PW-2 protested, the Appellant pushed her to the ground. The Appellant, thereafter, fled from the spot along with his axe while the deceased died on the spot. On the same date at around 10 pm, Rabi Mohanta (PW-1), the younger brother of the deceased Dalu Mohanta reported the matter to the Ghatagaon Police Station, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of which was Bijoy Krushna Mohapatra (PW-7). PW-7 then registered the FIR as Ghatagaon PS Case No.15 of 2003 and took up the investigation. He visited the spot and examined certain witnesses. The next morning, he held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He collected the blood-stained earth, sample earth, prepared a seizure list and dispatched the dead body for post-mortem.

The Appellant was arrested on the following day at 4 pm. According to the prosecution, while in the custody, the Appellant made a disclosure which led to recovery of the axe which was concealed in a paddy rack inside his house. Dr. P.K. Beuria (PW-6) was the doctor who conducted the postmortem. He noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:

(i) Incised injury 2 ½"x1/2"x1 ½" over right parietal area of the scalp, 3" above the right mastoid tip;

(ii) Incised injury 1 ½"x1/4"x scalp deep over occipital area of the scalp;

(iii) Incised injury 1"x1/2"x1/4" over left upper back in the supra-scapular region.

The opinion was that the death was homicidal as a result of the haemorrhage from the three injuries to the vital organs including the brain. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As many as seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the accused.

The three eye-witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 4 spoke consistently and corroborated each other in all the material particulars regarding the Appellant having attacked the deceased with an axe. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant sought to point out that the version of PW-2 was that the Appellant had attacked the deceased on the backside of the neck, the actual injuries were found in the back of the head.

The Court notes that as far as PWs 3 and 4 are concerned, they have consistently spoken of the accused attacking the deceased on the head with the axe and, therefore, the above discrepancy in the evidence of PW-2 cannot be considered to be material enough to discredit their versions. The cross-examination of three eye-witnesses did not yield much for the defence as they stood their ground.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant then argued that the three eye-witnesses were the interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies ought not to be easily believed. The settled legal position is that in a matter of this nature where it is natural for the close relatives to be present at the spot, their testimonies cannot be discarded only because they are the relatives of the deceased. However, the Court must be cautious in accepting their testimonies and look for corroboration in the material particulars and other external corroboration.

In the present case, not only PWs-2, 3 and 4 are consistent in their versions and fully corroborating each other but the medical evidence of PW-6 also corroborates the fatal injuries on the vital organs of the deceased by a sharp-edged weapon like an axe. In other words, the medical evidence corroborates the eye-witnesses’ testimonies in the material particulars.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant then sought to criticize the investigation for the imperfections in the seizure evidence concerning the axe and the blood-stains in the axe. Considering that this is a case which essentially turns on the direct evidence, any discrepancy as far as the evidence with regard to the seizures or chemical examination would pale into insignificance. Once the direct evidence in the form of three eye-witnesses is found to be cogent, reliable and safe to rely upon, there should be no difficulty for the trial Court to hold that the prosecution had proved the case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

Having carefully perused the entire evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the Appellant as well as for the State, the Court is satisfied that the trial Court has committed no error in finding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant then argued that the Appellant has already spent more than ten years in custody before he was granted bail by this Court during the pendency of the present appeal by an order dated 3rd April, 2013. Once the Appellant has been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, there only two possible options available to the trial Court as far as the sentencing is concerned is life imprisonment or death. In the facts of the present case, the trial Court was justified in awarding the Appellant punishment of imprisonment for life and such punishment, therefore, does not call for any interference.

For all of the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the present appeal and it is dismissed as such. The bail bonds of the Appellant are hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith and in any event not later than 17th July, 2023, failing which the IIC of the concerned police station will initiate steps to take him into the custody forthwith for serving out the remainder of the sentence.

…………………………………