Satrughana Sahu @ Sahoo vs State Of Odisha

D.Dash, J

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) Case No.150 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.803 of 2015 corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No.294 of 2015 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Angul.

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

Prosecution case is that one Chaitanya Behera was in love with the niece of the accused. The accused having come to know about this fact was terribly annoyed and he was in search of the opportunity to take revenge upon the Chaitanya. On 15.06.2015 around 2 pm, accused came to the house of Dayanidhi Behera (P.W.9) with the son of Chaitanya holding Katuri and searched for Chaitanya (P.W.12). When Dayanidhi (P.W.9) came to know of this fact, he informed the matter to his son-in-law, Chandra Mahalik of village Chhendipada. Getting such information from Dayanidhi (P.W.9), Chandra Mahalik proceeded to village Baluakata on a motorcycle with one Sudhanya (P.W.14) in a motorcycle. Sudhanya (P.W.14) drove the motorcycle and Chandra Mahalik (deceased) went as the pillion rider. When they reached Bandhasahi of village Baluakata, accused detained them on the way and suddenly, dealt the blow on the backside neck of Chandra, causing bleeding injury. He then dealt successive blows to Chandra on his back and neck by that Kati (Katuri). When Sudhanya (P.W.14) raised protest, accused rushed towards him to assault and therefore, out of fear, he ran away towards village leaving the motorcycle there at the spot. Hearing the hullah, father-in-law of Chandra and other family members rushed to the spot, Sudhanya (P.W.14) informed the matter to his wife from the mobile phone of a villager. He also requested his wife to inform about the incident to the family members of Chandra Mahalik (deceased).

Pintu Mahalik (P.W.15), who happens to be the son of Chandra Mahalik (Deceased) getting information regarding the incident, proceeded to the spot and noticed his father Chandra lying at the spot with bleeding injuries on his neck and back. Seeing this, Saroj Mahalik (P.W.10) gave him water to drink. On being asked, Chandra then disclosed that accused Satrughana dealt Katuri blows on him, causing those injuries. Chandra was immediately shifted to Nursing Home for treatment, but he was found dead by then. Chandra then was also taken to the nearest Government Hospital where the death was confirmed.

Pintu Mahalik (P.W.14) then lodged a written report before the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Angul P.S. The IIC having received above report, treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.5) and registered the case. He however directed the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police attached to the P.S. to take up investigation.

The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.21) in course of investigation examined the Informant and other witnesses. He visited the spot and prepared the spot map, Ext.13. He also seized the blood stained and sample earth from the spot under the seizure list, Ext.3. He too held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report, Ext. 2 and the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. Wearing apparels of the deceased were seized on production under the seizure list, Ext.4. The accused was apprehended and his statement was recorded. Pursuant to the said statement, he led the police and other witnesses for giving recovery of that blood stained Katuri from the place where it had been kept, which was then seized under Ext.11/2. The motorcycle which was lying at the spot was seized and giveen in zima of P.W.15 (Pintu Mahalik). The incriminating articles were also sent for chemical examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgah, Bhubaneswar through Court and the report thereof, Ext. 15 was obtained. On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.21) submitted Final Form, placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section-302 of the IPC.

Learned S.D.J.M., Angul having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the above noted offence and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing charge against the accused for the said offence.

In the Trial, the prosecution examined in total 21 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are the post occurrence witnesses and P.W.2 who is the cousin brother of the Informant, Pintu Mahalik has been examined as P.W.15. Father-in-law of the deceased has been examined as P.W.9, P.W.11 is the sister of the deceased and P.W.12 is the maternal uncle of Informant (P.W.15). The Doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.16. The witnesses to the statement of the accused while in police custody are P.Ws.19 and 20. The I.O. has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.21. Besides leading the evidence by examining above witnesses, the prosecution has proved several documents, which have been admitted in evidence has marked as Exts.1 to 16. Out those as already stated, the F.I.R. is Ext. 5 whereas the inquest report is Ext.2. Postmortem report obtained after examination of the dead body of the deceased is Ext.8. Statement of the accused said to have been made before the police after his arrest has been proved as Ext.10/2 and the chemical examination report is Ext.16; whereas the spot map has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.13.

The defence plea is that of complete denial and false implication. The accused has however not tendered any evidence in support of his defence.

The Trial Court upon examination of evidence of the Doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased P.W.16, his report Ext.8 and the evidence of P.W.21, who had held inquest over the dead body as well as the evidence of other witnesses has arrived at a conclusion that the death of Chandra Mahalik was homicidal in nature. In fact, this aspect of the case was not under challenge before the Trial Court and that has also been the situation before us.

It is the evidence of P.W.16 that he during postmortem examination had noticed two factures i.e. the fracture of right clavicle with incised would measuring 4cm X 2cm over the shoulder and fracture of left occipital bone at 3 cm behind the mastoid process. Besides above, he had noted three incised wounds; near left ear pinnae, left cheek at parotid region and right cheek below his ear lope. He too has stated to have seen that there was avulsion of brain materials at occipital region. As per his evidence, the death was due to respiratory arrest resulting from damage to vital brain centers and haemorrhage. He has specifically deposed that all the above injuries are antemortem in nature and the death was homicidal. All those what P.W.16 has stated during Trial finds mention in his report, Ext.8. Besides the above, the I.O. (P.W.21) has also stated to have found those injuries and noted those in the inquest report, Ext.2. The other witnesses have stated to have seen the deceased sustaining those injuries on different part of his body. With those evidence going unchallenged, we find absolutely no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that Chandra had met homicidal death.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the Trial Court without proper analysis of the evidence of P.W.14 and testing the same with the other circumstances which have emerged from the evidence of other witnesses has erred in relying upon his evidence. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 on critical examination ought not to have been held to be providing any support to the evidence of P.W.14. According to him, the evidence of P.W.11 ought not to have also been relied upon by the Trial Court since her version is not in consonance with the version of P.Ws. 9 and 11. He further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution that deceased had disclosed before them attributing authorship of the injuries received by him to the accused ought not to have been accepted by the Trial Court. He submitted that the Trial Court has not properly tested evidence of all these above witnesses in the touchstone of the reliability and acceptability; keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as have emerged during trial.

Learned Counsel for the State (Respondent) submitted all in favour of the finding returned by the Trial Court holding accused to be guilty for commission of offence under section-302 of the IPC. He submitted that in the absence of any such materials emerging from the evidence of P.Ws. 9, 11 and 14 so as to doubt their version in the direction of showing the complicity of the accused, the Trial Court has rightly held those witnesses to be reliable and their version as wholly trustworthy. He further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased had disclosed before them that he had been attacked by the accused in causing the bleeding injuries on his person being free from any such infirmity or improbability have been rightly accepted in fastening the guilt upon the accused.

Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. We have also gone through the depositions of the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 21 examined from the side of the prosecution and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 16.

As per the case of the prosecution on the relevant date and time, the deceased had been to village Baluakata in the motorcycle driven by P.W.14; the deceased was the pillion rider. It has been stated by P.W.14 that both went to village Baluakata on his motorcycle and on their arrival near the spot i.e. village road of Bandhasahi of Baluakata, the accused came from behind holding Katuri and suddenly gave the blow on the backside neck of Chandra, causing bleeding injuries. His version is that when hearing the cry of Chandra, he stopped the motorcycle and turned back, he saw accused dealing successive blows on Chandra near his back by that Katuri. The Doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of P.W.16 has also stated to have noted such injuries near the backside of the neck of the deceased and his evidence is that injuries are possible of being caused by Katuri which had the occasion to examine as per the request of the I.O. (P.W.21). He has further deposed that having seen the above, when he raised protest, accused went towards him to assault and out of fear; he started running leaving the motorcycle there at the spot. He has further stated that when he raised hullah, the father-in-law of Chandra and other family members rushed to the spot. This father-in-law of the deceased is P.W.9. It is his further evidence that the house of the father-in-law of the deceased is just near the spot. He has also stated that the father-in-law and his the family members hearing the shout had came out of their house. He has deposed that when father-in-law arrived at the spot, the assault was going on.

P.W.9, who is the father-in-law of the deceased has stated to have seen the accused assaulting his son-in-law (deceased) by remaining at a distance of 20 cubits. He has further stated that because of the blows by that sharp cutting weapon, his son-in-law (Chandra-deceased) sustained bleeding injuries on his neck and back. Despite cross-examination, we find that the evidence of all these witnesses has to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased has not been shaken in any manner nor any such materials have been elicited to create doubt in mind as to the presence of these witnesses near the place of occurrence at the relevant time.

It has been deposed by P.W.3 that when he had been to the spot and asked the deceased as to what was done to him and how he received the injuries, he told that accused had dealt Katuri blows with force on his back and neck, causing severe bleeding injuries. It is his clear evidence that at the relevant time, the accused was in sense. Although he has stated that accused Chandra at the time of his arrival was not sense, his version then has been that when he sprinkled water over his face and gave some water to drink, he regained his sense after five minutes. It is also his evidence that on his asking, deceased narrated the manner of assault on him and told about the role played by this accused. This has also been the evidence of P.W.6 that being asked by P.W.3, in their presence, the deceased disclosed that accused Satrughana had dealt Katuri blows on him. He has also stated that after villagers sprinkled water, the deceased was regained sense and told about the role of the accused in assaulting him. P.W.10 has further stated that grandfather of Pintu (P.W.9) and his aunt Rashmita were near the injured when he came. It is stated that deceased was then lying and crying in pain and on being asked, replied that “Satrughana Hani Dela” (Satrughana dealt the blows). This part of the evidence of the witnesses having no way been impeached, we find no reason to keep those beyond the arena of consideration.

P.W.15 has also stated that regarding the declaration made by the deceased before them that accused Satrughana had dealt the Katuri blows on him. During cross-examination, he had gone to explain that though at the initial stage, the deceased was not in a position to speak being not in sense, yet thereafter he regained his sense after water was given to him to drink. We find that the evidence of all these witnesses are free from any such infirmity nor there surfaces any improbability therein. The depositions of all these witnesses being read together, we also find that there is no such conflict inter se in so far as happening of the incident is concerned and the role assigned therein to the accused. The evidence of P.W.16 too provides full corroboration to the evidence of all these witnesses and under the circumstances merely because they are the relations of the deceased we are of the view that those cannot be termed to be the witnesses interested in successful culmination of the trial as against this accused by screening the real culprit. As all those obtained evidence have in no way been impeached and when the credibility of all these witnesses have firmly stood, we find no difficulty in accepting their evidence as trustworthy and reliable. We are therefore; of the view the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in so far as the complicity of the accused is concerned in intentionally causing the death of the deceased. The Trial Court, therefore, has not committed any error in holding the accused guilty for the offence under section-302 of the IPC. Consequentially, we hereby confirm the judgment.

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence impugned in this Appeal stand confirmed.

……………………………….