Raisingh Munda vs State Of Odisha

D.Dash, J

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the Jail, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st March, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.35/60 of 2014, arising out of G.R Case No. 1546 of 2013, corresponding to Nayakote P.S. Case No.74 of 2013 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Keonjhar.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC’) and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence under section 302 of the IPC.

Prosecution case is that on 04.12.2013 around 5 pm, Raisingh Munda (accused) and his son were cutting branches of a Kusuma Tree standing near the school of the village. Seeing that Baruna Naik (deceased) who was the then Chairman of the Managing Committee of the School told them not to cut the tree. It is stated that this accused thereby being enraged dealt blows by an axe on the head of Baruna causing profuse bleeding injuries leading to his fall on the ground. Receiving the blows, Baruna met an instantaneous death at the spot.

Kunti Naik, the wife of Baruna (informant-P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ext.1) to the above effect with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Nayakote Police Station. The IIC, having received the written report, treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and registering the case, took up investigation.

The Investigating Officer (I.O-P.W.14) then examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. He proceeded to the place where the trees were being cut by the accused and his son and the incident had taken place. The I.O (P.W.14) saw that the dead body of Baruna was lying on the ground with profuse bleeding injuries on his head. The spot being visited by the I.O, he prepared the spot map (Ext.1) and then held inquest over the deed body of the deceased in presence of witnesses and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.3). he then seized blood stained and sample earth from the spot and prepared seizure list under Ext.4. The accused was apprehended on the same day and then it is said that he was holding the axe. The axe was seized from his possession under seizure list, Ext.5. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the seized incriminating articles were also sent for chemical examination through court. The prayer of the I.O. (P.W.14) for recording of the statement of the informant (P.W.1) under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. being allowed, that was so done.

On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC.

Learned SDJM, Keonjhar having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the offences under section 302 of the IPC and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. That is how the Trial commenced against the accused by framing the charge for the said offence against the accused.

In the Trial, prosecution in total has examined fourteen (14) witnesses. As already stated, the wife of the deceased Baruna, who is the informant who had lodged the FIR (Ext.1) being scribed by one Rajendra Barik (not examined) is P.W.1 whereas the son of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the two witnesses to the inquest. The prosecution has examined P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 as other three witnesses to the occurrence. The Doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.13 whereas the Investigation Officer is P.W.14.

Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to 13. Out of those, the important are the FIR (Ext.1), Inquest Report (Ext.2), Post Mortem Report (Ext.3), Spot Map (Ext.10) and the Chemical Examiner’s Report which has been marked as Ext.13.

The plea of the accused is that of complete denial and false implication. In support of the same, being called upon the accused has however not tendered any evidence.

The Trial Court having gone through the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.13) and his report Ext.8 read with the opinion (Ext.9) and the evidence of the I.O (P.W.14), who had conducted the inquest and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.3) as also the evidence of other witnesses including P.W.1 and P.W.2 who had seen the deceased lying dead with injuries on his head has come to the conclusion that the death of Baruna was homicidal. In fact this aspect of the case was not under the challenge before the Trial Court and that is also the situation before us.

It has been stated by P.W.13 that during post mortem examination, he had noticed four incised wounds over different areas of head of the deceased and it is also said by him that on account of one injury over the right side of forehead, the brain matter were exposed through said injury. His evidence is also on the score that there is fracture of the frontal brain underneath the incised wounds over both sides of the forehead. It has been said that all such injuries are ante mortem in nature and the death was homicidal. That report prepared by

P.W.13 had been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.8. P.W.13 has also given his opinion being asked by the I.O (P.W.14) as regards the possibility of the injury being caused by the axe (M.O.-I) which had been seized in course of investigation, in the affirmative. In addition to the above, we find the evidence of the I.O (P.W.14), who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report which had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.3. The report finds mention of the injuries which P.W.14 had noticed. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnesses also go to show that the deceased receiving the injuries on his head was lying on the ground. All these evidence what we find have not at all faced any challenge. We are, therefore, not in a position to take a view, different from the one which has been taken by the Trial Court as regards to the homicidal nature of death of Baruna.

Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased and the star witness for the prosecution in its proper perspective. According to him, the evidence of P.W.1 when bristle with serious infirmities, the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the same in fastening the guilt upon the accused holding him to have committed the murder of Baruna. He further submitted that since the evidence of P.W.1 is not acceptable on proper scrutiny, the evidence of other witnesses are of no avail to say that those provide corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. He therefore, submitted that the Trial Court was not right in convicting the accused for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the State placing the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and the informant as well as the report (Ext.1) that had been lodged by her and treated as FIR submitted that there surfaces no infirmity much less any such serious to be taken note of in appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 so as to view the same with suspicion or to entertain any doubt in mind as regards the statement of P.W.1 who had seen the occurrence and thereby, the role played by this accused and the act done by him. He thus submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 being of sterling quality and wholly reliable the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for committing the murder of Baruna (deceased).

Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. We have also gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.14 and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to Ext.13.

Admittedly, Baruna(deceased) was then the Chairman of the School Managing Committee. It has been stated by P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased that during the evening hours, on that day, the accused was cutting a ‘Kusuma’ Tree standing in front of the school of the village and having seen that, when her husband Baruna told accused as to why he has so cutting the tree, the accused immediately dealt blows by means of that axe on the head of her husband leading to fall after receiving severe bleeding injuries. This witness (P.W.1) then states to have raised hullah, hearing which other witnesses arrived. During cross-examination this P.W.1 has reiterated to have seen the occurrence in stating that then she was returning from the school as she was also working as a cook in the school which can be seen from the noting made in her deposition and has not been questioned by the defence. It has also been stated by P.W.1 that the accused fled away from the spot seeing the villagers rushing down. Then she has further elaborated that prior to the actual assault being made by the accused upon the deceased, the son of the accused was found to be there on the tree cutting the branches and the accused standing on the ground was pruning those cut branches. The only comment that the defence is making against this witness (P.W.1) is that as against her evidence that she had stated that some other persons had also seen the incident, taking a cue from that sentence as none of those persons have been named and examined. It is therefore said that the evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable. We are, however, afraid to accept such a submission. The defence in order to take advantage of the same, has not gone further to ask P.W.1 as to who are those witnesses in seeking their names from her from which the veracity of her evidence to some extent would have been ascertained. Furthermore, when the presence of P.W.1 is not at all doubted that during the hour she while was coming from school after finishing her working as a cook in the said school, had seen the incident; in our view, non-examination of other witness which too is not specifically shown/placed will not lead to put the evidence of P.W.1 in the in the dustbin. The evidence of this P.W.1 also finds corroboration averments made in the FIR (Ext.1).

The above evidence of P.W.1 next finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 who has stated that her mother (P.W.1) was very much present at the spot when the incident took place. The other co-villagers rushing to the spot, hearing the hullah have also deposed as to what Kunti (P.W.1) immediately disclosed before them. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 finds full support from the evidence of medical evidence that when she states that the axe blows were given by the accused on the head of the deceased; the Doctor (P.W.13) in clear terms has said that with the help of that axe (M.O.I), the injuries noticed by him on the head were possible and the evidence on record further reveal as has been stated by the I.O (P.W.14) which has not at all been disputed that the said axe was seized from the custody of the accused. We are, therefore, of the view that the evidence of P.W.1 is wholly reliable and the Trial Court did commit no mistake in passing the conviction of the accused for committing the murder of Baruna by placing reliance.

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st March, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.35/60 of 2014 are hereby confirmed.

……………………………….