Santosh Mohanta @ Choudhury vs State Of Orissa

D.Dash, J

The Appellant from inside the jail has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.2109 of 2014 corresponding to Raghunathpali P.S. Case No.204(7) of 2014 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Panposh.

The Appellant (accused), thereunder has been convicted for committing offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The prosecution case is that on 15 to 17 days prior to the occurrence, the accused who happens to be the brother of the Informant (P.W.4) had come to the house of the Informant for his treatment. On prior occasions, the accused used to come to the house of the Informant and stay there for some period. The accused was not liking the proximity of one Paramananda Mahanta (deceased) to the family of his sister (Informant-P.W.4). The accused was suspecting some illicit relationship between his sister and the deceased. He therefore was quarrelling with the deceased. Whenever he was visiting the house of his sister (Informant-P.W.4), the Informant (P.W.4) was always denying about such suspected relationship of the deceased. As per the version of the Informant (P.W.4) was looking after the management of the hotel run by the Informant (P.W.4) and the house. The accused was however not being convinced with said presented explanation. On 11.09.2014 around 8.30 pm, when the Informant (P.W.4) was in her hotel and her sons and husband were not in the house; Paramananda came to the hotel. Having seen Paramananda in the hotel, the Informant (P.W.4) asked him to take food, Paramananda then told that he would take food later and so saying Paramananda went to the house of the Informant (P.W.4) situated on the backside of that hotel standing by the side of the Babamani Patrol Pump at Rourkela. Paramananda (deceased) went there to sleep. After about 10 minute, the accused came and went to the house of the Informant (P.W.4). It was around 9.30 pm, when one Tura Sardar (P.W.5), who was working in the hotel of the Informant (P.W.4) went to the house to keep certain articles. He then found the door of the house to have been closed being bolted from inside. So, he came back and told all those to the Informant (P.W.4). The Informant (P.W.4) then with P.W.5 went to her house and then she also found the door to have been locked from inside. The Informant (P.W.4) went and knocked the door of the house. Responding to said knock by Informant (P.W.4), the accused opened the door of the house. No sooner did the accused open the door, he pushed the Informant (P.W.4) and ran away from the place towards the paddy field on the back side of that hotel; P.W.5, the worker of the hotel, who was with the Informant (P.W.4) tried to restrain the accused but failed and the accused managed to flee from the house by taking the benefit of the darkness in that area during the relevant time. The Informant (P.W.4) then entered into the house and found the dead body of Paramananda with cut injuries on the neck and other parts of the body being inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon to be lying in his house. She (P.W.4) was surprised to see Paramananda died inside the house and lying in an injured condition. Finally, it was around 10.30 pm on 11.09.2014, the Informant (P.W.4) reported the matter in writing to the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Raghunathpali Police Station. The IIC (P.W.8) treating the said written report of P.W.4 as F.I.R., registered case and took up investigation.

In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.8) examined the Informant (P.W.4) and other witnesses. He also conducted inquest over the dead body by proceeding to the spot. The dead body was then sent by him for postmortem examination by issuing requisition. He also seized several incriminating articles under the seizure list. The spot being visited by the I.O.(P.W.8), he then prepared the spot map. The accused on 12.09.2014 was apprehended by the I.O. (P.W.8). Accused while in police custody gave the statement. Pursuant to his statement, he led the police to give recovery of the knife which had been kept by him inside the bush on the backside of that hotel of the Informant (P.W.4). The I.O. (P.W.8) recorded the statement of the accused under Ext.13 and having followed the accused to the place when accused gave recovery of the axe, the same was seized under the seizure list. The accused was then forwarded in custody to Court. The incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination on the prayer of the I.O. (P.W.8).

On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.8) submitted the Final Form, placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC.

Learned S.D.J.M., Panposh having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the said offence 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 said offence against the accused.

In the Trial, the prosecution examined in total eight (8) witnesses. Out of them as already stated, P.W.4 is the Informant. The Doctor who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.7. The worker of the hotel, who had been to the house of the Informant (P.W.4) and saw the door of the house to have been locked from inside has come to the witness box as P.W.5. The son of the P.W.4 has been examined as P.W.6. As already stated, the Investigating Officer is P.W. 8.

The prosecution besides leading evidence by examining the above witnesses has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 17. Out of those, the important are the F.I.R. (Ext.5), the postmortem report (Ext.7), inquest report, Ext. 6 and the statement of the accused pursuant to which the recovery of axe (M.O.-I) and the knife (M.O.-II) was made had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.13. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ext.17.

The defence has tendered not any evidence in support of the plea of complete denial and false implication.

The Trial Court on examination of the evidence on record and their analysis has held the accused guilty of committing the murder of Paramananda and accordingly, the accused has been convicted and sentenced as aforestated.

Ms. B.L. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 and therefore, the finding of guilt returned against the accused is the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence and thus cannot stand to the scrutiny. He further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and all these three witnesses, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are post occurrence witnesses and that too their evidence greatly differ from one another on material particulars and from what they have stated, it would be extremely hazardous to hold that its none other than the accused is author of the crime.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that all though there is no such eye witness to the occurrence yet, the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, when are read together with the proven circumstances prevailing during that time, there is not escape from the conclusion that it is the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased and none else could have even done so.

Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Trial Court and we have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 8 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 17.

The nature of death of Paramananda as homicidal is not in dispute. The Doctor who had held autopsy over the deceased i.e. P.W.7 has stated to have found several external injuries numbering ten (10) and most of those injuries are on vital part of the body. She has noted all these in her report Ext.7. According to her, all those injuries are antemortem in nature and she having examined the seized axe and knife has answered that said injuries are possible with the said weapon. The report to that effect has been proved by her and marked Ext.8. With such evidence of the Doctor, the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.7) who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased also appears to be of importance. P.W.7 has noted such injuries in his own language in the inquest report, Ext.6. Other witnesses have also stated to have seen the dead body with said external injuries. All such evidences having remained unchallenged, we find no point to record our disapproval as to the nature of death as held to be homicidal.

Admittedly, the accused had gone to the house of his sister-P.W.4 and he was also in visiting terms to the house of P.W.4. The accused during that spell had gone to her house with some health problem and was residing with her. It has been stated by her that on the previous day of the occurrence, the accused had a quarrel with the deceased, who used to stay with P.W.4 from his childhood days along with other members of the family of P.W.4. She has further stated that the accused being asked as to why he was picking up quarrel with Paramananda, it was told that he should behave like a guest. The reply of the accused was as to why deceased-Paramananda was behaving like the owner of the house and hotel.

P.W.4 has further stated that it was around 8.30 pm, Paramananda telling her went to sleep in the house, which was situated on the backside of the hotel run by P.W.4. It is also her evidence that accused was sitting near the Tulasi Chaura outside the house and sometime thereafter when P.W.4 instructed another worker-P.W.5 to wash the utensils and keep it in the house that P.W.5 having gone to the house with the utensils, found the room to have locked from inside. She has further deposed that P.W.5 then came and reported the matter for which the P.Ws. 4 & 5 together went and then P.W.4 knocked at the door. It has been deposed by her that at that point of time, her brother (accused) opened the door and pushing her aside and fled away. Then it is the stated by P.W.4 that P.W.5 shouted “Mora Puake Karidela; Mora Puake Maridela” (my son was killed; my son was killed). P.W.4 then saw the deceased-Paramananda lying dead in pool of blood with cut injuries on neck, belly and body and the axe and knife were also found nearby. So, the evidence of P.W.4 is that the house being locked from inside, when was opened by accused none else was present in the house and immediately, thereafter Paramananda was found dead lying in pool of blood with injuries all over his body and then accused opening the door managed to escape by giving push at P.W.4. Above evidence of P.W.4 receive full corroboration from the evidence of P.W.5, who has stated that having washed the utensils as directed by P.W.4, when he went to the house situated on the backside of the hotel, he found the door to have locked from inside. He has also stated that seeing the condition of the door, he returned to the hotel of the Informant (P.W.4). So, P.W.4 and he again went and knocked the door. He has stated that in the same vein as that of P.W.4 that accused opened the door and fled away by pushing P.W.4 aside who was then just near the entrance. He states that then they found Paramananda lying dead with a pool of blood and with the cut injuries on the neck and axe and knife were lying nearby.

The evidence of P.W.4 during cross-examination is more emphatic that at the relevant time, Paramananda and accused were the two who were inside the house and none else. When it has been stated by P.W.4 that she had seen the axe and knife lying near the dead body, she has not stated so in course of investigation. But that in our considered view is of not that significance or impact to entirely disbelieve the assertive version of P.W.4 that no sooner did accused opened the door, he pushed her and fled away and at that point of time Paramananda was seen lying dead with injuries.

P.W.5 although has been cross-examined, we find no such material to have elicited to discard his version. He has further stated that the light at that time was sufficient and he has also been emphatically that none else except the accused came out to the house. He states that when they knocked the door being present in front of the door, the accused opened the door and escaped and then they saw Paramananda lying dead with injuries in pool of blood. Above being the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, we find the evidence of P.W.6 to the effect that he had seen the accused who has his maternal uncle sitting near the Tulasi Chaura of the house. This P.W.6 is the son of P.W.4 and he has stated that when P.W.5 had been to the house to keep the utensils and returned finding the door closed from inside, he informed P.W.4 who was in the hotel and then he was present. He has further stated that such information really surprised to them as Paramananda never used to bolt the door from inside. This P.W.6 appears to have not gone to the house and later to have heard from her mother and P.W.5 as to what they saw after they together went to the house. He however stated that hearing shout of his mother, he had been to the place and saw Paramananda lying dead with cut injuries in his leg, neck and hand.

Defence having cross-examined all these above witnesses appears to have not been able to bring out any such material to cast any doubt over the version of those witnesses with regard to any such important facet including their presence. The accused then also does not provide any explanation that before he opened the door, what actually happened in showing that he had no role to play. With such evidence on record over which we are not in a position even to raise any slightest doubt; the Trial Court’s finding holding the accused guilty of committing murder of Paramananda in ultimately concluding that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, in our view is well in order.

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th November, 2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.16 of 2015 are hereby confirmed.

……………………………….