Nrupa Rana vs State Of Odisha

D.Dash, J

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No.49 of 2016, arising out of G.R Case No. 125 of 2016, corresponding to Sindhekela P.S Case No.60 of 2016 of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Titilagarh.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay of fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with the default stipulation to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years.

Prosecution case is that on 17.03.2016, around 8 a.m., Kshyama Rana (Informant-P.W.1), with his daughter Damen Rana (P.W.2) and son Rakhi Rana were in their cultivable land where they had raised onion crop. At that time, the accused, who happens to be the son of Kshyama (P.W.1) through his first wife, came with his wife and started to quarrel with his step mother, Rukmani Rana (deceased-A). The accused then was demanding more share from the landed properties of Kshyama. At this point of time, suddenly, the accused dealt an axe blow on the neck of Rukmani. Receiving the said injury, Rukmani fell on the ground and met instantaneous death. Seeing such incident, Kshyama (P.W.1), with her daughter Damen (P.W.2) and son Rakhi ran away from the spot. But then the accused chased them and getting Rakhi Rana (deceased-B) dealt an axe blow on him for which he fell down. The accused then gave successive blows on his neck by that axe. Due to such injuries, Rakhi Rana, a boy of 5 years old (deceased-B) also met instantaneous death. Kshyama (P.W.1) then ran towards the village and intimated all these happenings to the villagers.

On that day at about 10.30 a.m., Kshyama (P.W.1) presented a written report before the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Sindhekela Police Station. Receiving the said report, the IIC immediately registered the case and took up investigation.

In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.14) examined the informant and other witnesses including Damen Rana, the daughter of the informant (P.W.2). He then proceeded to the spot and held inquest over the dead bodies of Rukmani and her son Rakhi. Thereafter, requisitioning the services of the members of the Scientific Team from the Head Quarter, he held inquest over the dead bodies and seized the incriminating articles under the seizure list. The Inquest Reports (Ext.2 and Ext.3) waere prepared by the I.O. (P.W.14) in presence of the witnesses. He then issued requisitions for Post Mortem Examination of the dead bodies and seized the wearing apparels of the deceased persons under seizure lists. Then he arrested the accused and forwarded him in custody to Court. He also got the statement of Damen Rana (P.W.2) recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate by making a prayer in that regard. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC for having intentionally caused the death of Rukmani (deceased-A) and her son Rakhi (deceased-B).

On receipt of the above Final Form, learned S.D.J.M., Athmallik, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge against the accused for having intentionally caused the death of deceased-A and B.

In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined fourteen (14) witnesses. The accused having taken the plea of denial has however, not tendered any evidence. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased-A and father of the accused, who is also the informant and his written report was treated as FIR (Ext.6). The daughter of P.W.1 and deceased-A has been examined as P.W.2, who is the step sister of the accused. Another son of P.W.1, who is the step brother of the accused has been examined as P.W.4. The person, who had scribed the FIR is P.W.5 whereas P.W.3 is a co-villager. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem over the dead bodies of the deceased-A and B is P.W.11 and another person namely, Bhagatram Jani has been examined as eye witness and he is P.W.8. The I.O. has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.14. Prosecution besides leading the above witness by examining the above witnesses has also proved several documents which have been admitted and marked Ext.1 to Ext.22, out of those Ext.2 and Ext.3 are the Inquest reports of Rakhi Rana and Rukmani Rana respectively. The FIR is marked as Ext.6 whereas the Post Mortem Reports are Ext.10 & Ext.11. The spot map prepared by P.W.14 is Ext.21 and the Chemical Examiner’s Report is Ext.22.

The wearing apparels of the deceased and also that axe, which was seized during the course of investigation and other incriminating articles i.e. broken bangles have been produced during Trial and marked as Material Objects (M.O.I to M.O.VII).

The Trial Court having examined the evidence of P.W.11, who is the Doctor, who had held autopsy over the dead body of deceased-A and B and submitted his reports (Ext.10 and Ext.11) as well as other evidence coming from the lips of other witnesses, who are said to have seen the details of the happenings in the said incident; more importantly, the evidence of P.W.14, who had held inquest over the dead body and prepared the reports Ext.2 and Ext.3, noting the injuries received by deceased-A and B therein has arrived at a conclusion that both met homicidal death. In fact this aspect of the case was not challenged before the Trial Court and that is also the situation before us.

The Doctor, P.W.11, who had conducted the Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased-A has found seven (7) lacerated wounds on different parts of the body of deceased-A and most of those are on the vital part. He has stated about the size of those injuries as well as their seats. According to his evidence, the death of Rukmani (deceased-A) was on account of head injury, bleeding and shock resulting from the injuries to the vital organs like brain, trachea and vessels of the neck. In the report (Ext.10), he has narrated all such injuries in detail and has also given his opinion with that regard to the death in further saying that all such injuries are ante mortem in nature.

During post mortem examination of the dead body of Rakhi (deceased-B), the son of deceased-A and informant Kshyama, who was then aged about 5 years. P.W.11 has noticed two lacerated injuries and two lacerated wounds on vital part of the body and it is also stated by P.W.11 that all such injuries are ante mortem in nature and the cause of death is the result of such injuries on the vital organs like blood vessels, on front of neck involving larynx and trachea. According to him, these injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In his report, (Ext.11), he has narrated all those in detail which he has also deposed during the Trial. P.W.14, the I.O having held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased A and B has prepared the Inquest Reports Ext.2 and Ext.3. He too had noted such injuries on the dead bodies. Other witnesses including informant (P.W.1 )and his daughter Damen (P.W.2) have stated regarding the causation of the injuries on the deceased persons on neck. With such evidence on record which have remained unimpeached, we find absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with the view taken by the Trial Court that Rukmani and her minor son Rakhi, then aged about 5 years (deceased-A and B) met homicidal death.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence properly and when the evidence of those witnesses including P.W.1 and P.W.8 ought to have been held to be doubtful, the Trial Court has not at all viewed in that light. In this connection, it is stated that when both P.W.1 and P.W.8 have said that accused quarreled with the deceased Rukmani and in course of quarrel, the accused assaulted deceased Rukmani, since P.W.1 does not say about the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.8 also does not state about the presence of P.W.1; evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 ought to have been kept beyond the arena of consideration for the purpose of ascertain the role of the accused therein. It is stated that in view of such evidence, the presence of both P.W.1 and P.W.8 at the time of occurrence and they to have seen the same ought to have been held to be unreliable. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not critically examined the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.8 although it ought to have been so done as these three witnesses are highly interested witnesses and bearing grudge against the accused for which the possibility for them to falsely implicate this accused in the case is not ruled out.

Learned counsel for the State refuting the submission as above contended that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.8 stand as rock solid despite seathing cross-examination. According to him, all these witnesses when have stated in clear terms that the accused came, quarreled with Rukmani (deceased-A) and then assaulted her to death and thereafter when Kshyama and Rakhi (deceased-B) and others while running away, on the way, he too assaulted Rakhi (deceased-B) by means of axe by giving successive blows which resulted his death, the accused has been rightly found guilty of committing the murder of both Rukmani and Rakhi which is not liable to be tinkered with.

Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also gone through the depositions of all the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.14 and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to 22 from the side of the prosecution.

At the risk of repetition, it be stated that the prosecution case from the beginning is that the evidence of the informant (P.W.1) and the daughter of deceased P.W.1 i.e. P.W.2 having been fully corroborated through the evidence of P.W.8, there remains no escape for the conviction of the accused, as no such inconsistencies in their evidence has surfaced to brand them as untrustworthy witnesses.

It is the evidence of the informant (P.W.1), who happens to be the husband of deceased-A and the father of the accused as well as the father of the other deceased-B that on that day, around 10 a.m. he with his second wife Rukmani (deceased-A) had been to their cultivable land where they had grown onion crop and his son Rakhi (deceased-B) aged about 5 years as well as their daughter Damen (P.W.2) were with them. He states that there they saw that the accused was cultivating the land with one Bhagatram Jani (P.W.8). He further states that when he protested, the accused got enraged and threatened to kill him and then deceased Rukmani intervened and she was also threatened to kill. It is his evidence that thereafter, Bhagatram (P.W.8) left the field. It is his further evidence that then accused assaulted his wife Rukmani, his step mother (deceased-A) by axe on her neck near ear and belly for which she immediately fell on the ground and died. He has stated that seeing such incident, he with his son Rakhi (deceased-B) and daughter Damen (P.W.2) started running from the spot and the accused having chased them on the way by coming closer to Rakhi (deceased-B) assaulted by means of that axe causing severe injuries on his vital part and deceased-B then receiving said injuries died instantaneously. It is his evidence that thereafter he informed the villagers, namely, Jhankar and Rathi Putel (P.W.3). He further states that he having gone to the Police Station had presented a written report scribed by one Budhia Nag (P.W.5), who had reduced his version as regards the incident into writing. This P.W.1 has been cross-examined at length. During cross-examination, he has stated that the incident took place in the middle portion of the land and at that time he, his wife Rukmani (deceased-A), son Rakhi (deceased-B) and daughter Damen (P.W.2) were present and then no outsider was nearby. On a reading of the portion of deposition as to what he has stated during cross-examination, we find that absolutely nothing has been elicited from him so as to entertain any doubt in mind for even a moment that he, being not present, has been posing so. He has clearly stated that the role of the accused in assaulting Rukmani (deceased-A) by axe causing several injuries all over her body including those on the vital part and his evidence that accused dealt axe blows upon his son Rakhi (deceased-B) has in no way been shaken. No such facts have also been brought out from him even to infer for a moment that he could not have seen the happenings. His evidence is heavily commented upon on the ground that when he says that the incident took place on 10 a.m., P.W.14 states to have received the FIR from P.W.1 at 10.30 a.m. and then, he states to have arrested the accused at 11.45 a.m which is thus doubtful. It was further submitted that since accused was not pulling on well with P.W.1 and he was asking more landed property to be given to him towards his share which was being deferred, under the circumstance, the evidence of P.W.1 should not have been held as reliable. We cannot be obvious of the position that this witness P.W.1 hails from rural background. It has to be borne in mind that ordinarily a person having seen such an unexpected incident happening all of a sudden to his total surprise is likely to be dumfounded for quite sometime. Also that person coming to describe such incident at a subsequent point of time, is likely to lose his mental balance because of the cruel manner of commission of the crime in which not only that his wife was killed but also his minor son before his eyes being so brutally assaulted to death where he being unarmed and helpless, could do nothing. It is not expected from even an intelligent person at that stage to keep note of the time in memory. Therefore, P.W.1 to remember the exact time of happening of the incident is not at all expected and for that it would not at all be justified to throw aside his ocular testimony which are found to be free from any such inherent improbability.

With the above evidence of P.W.1, when we approach the evidence of P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.1, then aged about 16 years or so, she is found to have stated about the role of this accused in the line, similar as that of her father (P.W.1). According to her, it is the accused who assaulted both her mother, Rukmani (deceased-A) as well as her brother Rakhi (deceased-B). We too here find that the witness being put to rigorous cross-examination, no such material has surfaced being so elicited to cast any doubt in our mind for even a fraction of a second that she having not seen the incident has falsely implicated the accused. When the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2, who are the natural witnesses are found to be wholly trust worthy and reliable, even without proceeding further to discuss the other available evidence such as the evidence of P.W.8, factum of seizure of axe and the evidence that it can cause the fatal injuries on the decease-A and B, we are led to hold that the accused is liable to be convicted under section 302 of IPC for double murder. In that view of the matter, we confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which have been impugned in this Appeal.

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No.49 of 2016 are hereby confirmed..

……………………………