Sonu Challan vs State Of Orissa

By the Bench The appellant Sonu Challan faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in Sessions Case No.07 of 2001

for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 20.07.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. in village Totaguda, he

committed murder of his younger brother’s wife namely Laxmi Challan (hereafter ‘the deceased’).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2003 found the appellant guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by P.W.1 Subash Challan, husband of the deceased before the officer in charge of

Orkel police station on 21.07.2000 is that on that day at about 2.00 p.m., while he had been to village Gopalpur to the house of Sima Sahukar to get

some loan amount from him and waiting there, at about 6.00 p.m., he got the message from one Shyama Kirsani that while the deceased was working

in the maize field, at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant who is his elder brother came there being armed with a tangia and threatened the deceased and

asked her about the whereabouts of the informant. When the deceased replied that the informant was not there in the house, the appellant dealt four

to five blows by means of the tangia which he was holding on the neck, back, shoulder and head of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased

succumbed to the injuries at the spot. After killing the deceased, the appellant left that place holding tangia. Hearing this news from Shyama Kirsani,

the informant rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying dead in the maize field and she had sustained bleeding injuries on different parts of the

body. It is further stated in the first information report that the assault was seen by P.W.2 Raila Sisa and one Shyama Sisa and others. It is further

stated that since five to six years back, the appellant had wrongfully confined the informant, the deceased and his own wife inside a room and set fire

to the house locking the door from outside and in that case he was in custody for about nine to ten months.

On the basis of such first information report, Orkel P.S. Case No.51 of 2000 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the

appellant. One Gopinath Kirsani, S.I. of police attached to Orkel police station took up investigation of the case and he prepared the inquest report vide

Ext.1, effected seizure of blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot vide seizure list Ext.2. He sent the dead body for post mortem

examination and also effected seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased under seizure list Ext.3. The appellant was arrested and on his

production, one blood stained tangia was seized vide seizure list Ext.9. The wearing apparels of the appellant were also seized under seizure list

Ext.10. The spot map was prepared. The seized exhibits were forwarded to R.F.S.L., Berhampur through learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri and chemical

examination report (Ext.13) was received. P.W.11 Laxmidhar Dalai took over charge of investigation and on completion of investigation, he submitted

charge sheet against the appellant on 16.11.2000.

After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial observing due committal procedure where the appellant

was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.11.2001 and since he refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the

sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.

During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses.

P.W.1 is the informant of the case and husband of the deceased. He is a post-occurrence witness.

P.W.2 Raila Sisa, P.W.3 Tulsa Khara, P.W.4 Nila Khemudu and P.W.5 Bhagaban Sisa are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.

P.W.7 Dr. Sashibhusan Mohapatra conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased on 22.7.2000 and he proved the post mortem

report vide Ext.4 and also on the query made by the investigation officer, he gave his opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible

by tangia which was produced before him.

P.W.11 is the investigating officer. The rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses.

The prosecution also exhibited thirteen documents. Ext.1 is the inquest report, Exts.2 and 3 are the seizure lists, Ext.4 is the post mortem report, Ext.5

is the report on query, Ext.6 is the command certificate, Ext.7 is the dead body challan, Ext.8 is the first information report, Exts.9 and 10 are the

seizure lists, Ext.11 is the spot map, Ext.12 is the forwarding letter and Ext.13 is the chemical examination report.

The prosecution also proved two material objects,

M.O.I is the lathi and M.O.II is the stone.

The defence plea of one of denial.

The learned trial Court mainly relying upon the statements of the eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence found the appellant guilty under

section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon the acceptance and otherwise of the evidence of the four eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5

as well as the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) who conducted the post mortem examination.

First, coming to the prosecution case that the deceased met with a homicidal death, it appears that apart from the inquest report (Ext.1), the evidence

of P.W.7 who was the Medical Officer of Khairput C.H.C. is very much relevant. On 22.7.2000 he conducted post mortem examination over the

dead body of the deceased and noticed the following external injuries:-

(i) Incised wound 3½â€​ x 1/4â€​ over left side neck 4â€​ below the left ear;

(ii) Incised wound 3/2â€​ x 1/4â€​ over right side neck 1/2â€​ below to right ear;

(iii) Incised wound 2½â€​ x 1/2â€​ over occipital part (back of the head);

(iv) Incised wound 2½â€​ x 1/2â€​ x 1/4"" over backside below left scapula;

(v) Incised wound 2½â€​ 1/2â€​ x 1/4â€​ over left side neck below to the left ear.

He opined that all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. He also found that the scalp of the occipital part was cut and brain matters came

out and liquefaction of brain had started and the muscles of neck were cut corresponding to injuries nos.(i), (ii) & (iv). He also noticed fracture of the

skull bone corresponding to injury No.(iii). He opined the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and intracranial haemorrhage

leading to cardiorespiratory failure which led to shock and death. He opined the cause of death was homicidal and the injuries were antemortem in

nature. On a query being made by the investigating officer with reference to the possibility of injuries sustained by the deceased with the weapon of

offence i.e. seized tangia, he gave his opinion that the injuries were possible by tangia as per his report Ext.5. He further stated that the injuries can

cause death in ordinary course of nature.

Mr. Hemanta Kumar Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant has not brought out any infirmity in the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7). Thus on the

basis of the inquest report (Ext.1) as well as the post mortem report findings and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7), we are of the view that the

prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased met with a homicidal death and the finding on that score by the learned trial Court is quite

justified.

Coming to the evidence of the eye witnesses, P.W.2 Raila Sisa has stated that his house was close to the house of the deceased and on the date of

occurrence during afternoon, the appellant came and committed murder of the deceased by giving tangia blows on different parts of her body and she

met with an instantaneous death at the spot and that the deceased had sustained bleeding injuries on either side of her neck. He specifically stated to

have seen the murder of deceased which took place in his presence. In the cross-examination, he has stated to have seen the assault on the deceased

as well as the appellant leaving from the place of occurrence. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. Thus the

evidence of P.W.2 has remained unshaken.

P.W.3 Tulsa Khara has stated that she was present in the house of the deceased when the appellant came and dealt a stick blow to her and she fell

down and then the appellant went towards the maize field holding a tangia and a kati where he killed the deceased by causing bleeding injuries by

means of tangia. She further stated that the appellant gave tangia blows on either side of neck and other parts of the body of the deceased in her

presence for which the deceased met with an instantaneous death on account of profuse bleeding from her neck injuries and other injuries. In the

cross- examination, P.W.3 has stated that she was in the house of the deceased and the deceased was then working in the maize field which was

close to her house and the occurrence took place at the time of sunset. She further stated that there was no quarrel between the appellant and the

deceased prior to the assault on the deceased. On being recalled by the Public Prosecutor, she identified M.O.I to be the tangia with which the

deceased was assaulted by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any contradictions or improbability feature in the

evidence of P.W.3 and thus her evidence has also remained unshaken.

P.W.4 Nila Khemudu has stated that he was present in his house when he saw the appellant came holding a tangia and straightway went near the

deceased who was there in the maize field close to her bari and dealt tangia blows on different parts of her body. He further stated that the appellant

dealt taiga blows on the neck, back and other portion of the body for which the deceased met with an instantaneous death then and there. In the

cross-examination, the defence has drawn his attention with reference to his previous statement that he had not made any statement before the

investigating officer to have seen the appellant committing the murder of the deceased by giving tangia blows on her person. Though the witness has

denied but this contradiction has been proved through the evidence of the investigating officer (P.W.11) who has stated P.W.4 has not stated in his

statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he himself had seen the occurrence. Thus when P.W.4 has not stated before the police to have

seen the occurrence and for the first time he is deposing in that respect during trial, we are not inclined to place any reliance on his evidence as an eye

witness to the occurrence.

Coming to the evidence of P.W.5 Bhagaban Sisa, he has stated that hearing hullah, he immediately rushed to the spot and saw the appellant going

away from the spot after killing the deceased and he was armed with tangia. He further stated that out of fear he did not try to catch hold of the

appellant as he was holding the tangia in his hand. In the cross- examination, P.W.5 has stated that the time of occurrence was not dark. He further

stated that he did not know the cause of dispute between the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant

has also failed to point out anything from the evidence of P.W.5 that his evidence is not acceptable.

Thus on a cumulative effect of reading the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 indicate that even though the version of P.W.4 as an eye witness to the

occurrence is not acceptable, but the evidence of the eye witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 coupled with the statement of P.W.5 to have seen the appellant

leaving the spot with the tangia has remained unshaken. The version of the doctor (P.W.7) who conducted post mortem examination indicate that

there were injuries on different vital parts of the body of the deceased and all those injuries were possible by the tangia which was seized at the

instance of the appellant. Moreover, the chemical examination report which is marked as Ext.13 shows that the seized tangia was containing blood of

human origin of group ‘B’ and the wearing apparels of the appellant which were seized were also containing blood of human origin of group

‘B’ which was the blood group of the deceased. The manner in which the appellant came to the spot with tangia and assaulted a defenceless

lady mercilessly on different vital parts of her body which led to her instantaneous death at the spot without any kind of provocation from her and

since the injuries were opined to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, it clearly proves the intention of the appellant to commit

murder.

We are thus of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the charge

under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and we find no perversity in such finding.

It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate that he has received information from the Office of

Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Koraput vide letter dated 07.01.2020 that the appellant has been released under Premature Rule on 07.01.2020 as

per Order No.219 dated 04.01.2020 by the Government of Odisha, Law Department. The letter dated 07.01.2020 of the Senior Superintendent Circle

Jail, Koraput filed by the learned counsel for the State is taken on record.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence under section

302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity and the same is

upheld. We find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the JCRLA stands dismissed.

Lower Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information.