In this jail criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence for murder, the Orissa High Court upheld the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the defense of involuntary intoxication, and directed consideration for premature release.
Appellant's conviction upheld; case to be considered for premature release by State Government.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Jail Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2005
From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 30.08.2014 by Sri S.C. Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher convicting the appellant-Kailash Giri under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life in S.T. Case No.21 of 2003
| Kailash Giri | ---------- … |
Appellant |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| State of Odisha |
… | Respondent |
| For appellant | - | Mr. Bharat Bhusan Routray, |
| For opposite party | - --------- |
Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik, (Addl. Government Advocate) |
P R E S E N T :
SHRI S.K.MISHRA, J.
AND
MISS SAVITRI RATHO, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing : 26.02.2021 & 11.06.2021, Date of Judgment – 11.06.2021
S.K.Mishra, J. In this case, the sole appellant-Kailash Giri calls in question his conviction under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as ‘Penal Code’ for brevity, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case No.21 of 2003
as per the judgment dated 30.08.2004. He has been sentenced to undergo
2
imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the aforesaid offence, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3
examination and upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
Taking into evidence of PW.3-Nandi Naik, who has witnessed the occurrence of murder committed by the appellant, as supported by immediate witnesses like P.Ws.2, 3 and 7, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal. Such view is supported by the evidence of P.W.9, Dr. Sailendranath Negi. He has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found five incised injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which two injuries were on the head of the deceased exposing brain matter, one on the right side neck of the deceased, one on the right side back. Moreover, the evidence further reveals that the prosecution has established that injuries can be caused by the weapon of offence, which has been examined by the doctor as per Ext.6, the report of the doctor.
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the prosecution has
4
established that the appellant has done the deceased to death, he submits that this is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Rather, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He submits that the very prosecution case is that the appellant in an intoxicated condition committed the offence. So, as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that this is a case of murder and it should not be converted into a conviction under Section 304 of the Penal Code. It is also submitted by her that there is no exception under Section 300 of the Penal Code, to the effect that, if an offence is committed in an intoxicated condition, it shall become a lesser offence.
“ 85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will. – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing, it, it, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
The aforesaid provision can be invoked if the following ingredients are
satisfied:-
5
Send the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court forthwith.
The JCRLA is disposed of.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 are continuing, the
learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of this judgment available in the
6
High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by Mr. Sidhartha Samal, Advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15.04.2021.
……………………….
Savitri Ratho, J.
………………………. Savitri Ratho,J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 11th June, 2021/PCD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 302 IPC stands sustainable given the appellant's intoxicated state of mind?
Whether the plea of incapability of judgment due to involuntary intoxication can be accepted?
Whether the appellant is entitled to consideration for premature release?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shyam Sundar Jena vs. State of OrissaRelied on¶37
Shyam Sundar Jena vs. State of Orissa, JCRLA No.73 of 2006
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kailash Giri
State of Odisha
S.K.Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.K.Mishra and Savitri Ratho
Parties & counsel
