The High Court of Orissa dismissed the appeal by an accused convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder. Upholding the trial court's judgment, the Court held that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the nature of injuries, presence of weapons, and blood stains, proved the case.
Appeal dismissed; Trial Court Records returned to the trial court.
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.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
JCRLA No.86 of 2008
From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2008 passed by Sri P.K. Nayak, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.), Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.213/39 of 2006-07.
Baikuntha Bihari Dansana …… Appellant. - VersusState of Orissa …… Respondent. For Appellant : Mrs. C. Kasturi, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent : Mr. G.N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel ---------
P R E S E N T :
SHRI JUSTICE S. K. MISHRA AND
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO-
Date of Hearing 04.03.2021 and Judgment-21.06.2021
S. K. MISHRA, J. The sole appellant-Baikuntha Bihari Dansana assails his
conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Penal Code,” for brevity) and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life, recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.), Sambalpur in S.T. Case
2
No.213/39 of 2006-07, vide, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05. 2008.
During investigation, police visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body, arrested the accused, seized axe and sickle, the weapon of offence and other incriminating materials, sent the seized articles for chemical examination and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
3
In addition to the examination of witnesses, prosecution had relied upon certain documents marked as Ext.1 to Ext.25 and eight materials objects marked as M.O.-I to M.O.-VIII.
case, the prosecution has examined P.W.11, Dr. Gobardhan Behera, who
4
has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Bijaysankar Patel. In his evidence, P.W.11 has stated that on 05.07.2006 he was working as Asst. Surgeon at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Kuchinda and on that day at 12.30 P.M. he conducted postmortem examination and on examination of the dead body, he found the following injuries:-
On dissection, he found semi-digested food particles were in
stomach, both the hearts were empty, cervical muscles were incised, cervical bones were fractured, spinal cord at the neck level, were cut. He opined that the internal injuries found on the neck correspond to external injury no-iv and the death was caused due to complete cutthroat causing massive hemorrhage and shock. The injuries found on the neck, are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He further opined the death was homicidal and it was caused within 12 to 24 hours before the time of postmortem examination. He proved his postmortem examination report as Ext.10.
5
The evidence of P.W.11 further reveals that on 05.07.2006
he examined one Axe and one sickle (weapons of offence in this case) and the description of the Axe is as follows:
“The axe had a wooden handle and was
fitted on the blunt end of the axe having length-
27.5’’, the circumstance was 3.5’’, the length of the iron part was 7’’ and the length of the sharp blade-2.5’’ and the blade was stained with blood”.
The description of the Sickle is as follows:
“The sickle had a wooden handle of length-
5.5’’, length of the iron part-18’’ having multiple
sharp teeth in one side and the other side was blunt. The sickle was stained with blood”.
After examination of the weapons of offence, he opined that the injuries found on deceased, Bijaysankar Patel as per postmortem examination report, Ext.10, could be possible by the weapons examined by him. He proved the weapon examination report as Ext.12.
The evidence of P.W.11 further reveals that on 05.07.2006 he examined accused Baikuntha at about 1.30 P.M. and found two minor abrasions and a bruise on his person.
He opined that the age of the injuries were within 12 to 24 hours at the time of his examination. He collected the nail clippings of accused and kept it in glass vials and lebelled the same and handed over the same to the accompanying police party. He examined the blood of the
6
accused and found the blood group was ‘O’ positive. He proved his examination report of the accused and the report of collection of the nail clippings and the grouping of blood of the accused as Ext.13. During cross-examination, he has stated that when the dead body reached at the hospital, at that time, the head was severed from the body and it was kept close to the body.
During cross-examination, P.W.11 admitted that he made correction of the date from 15.07.2006 to 05.07.2006 in the postmortem examination report (Ext.10) inside the Courtroom. The witness volunteers that for the first time he was deposing as a witness in a case of murder and explained that as he prepared the postmortem report and he found the date was wrongly mentioned, so without having any ill intention, he corrected the date due to ignorance. In Ext.10, col-6 it reveals, the date was mentioned as 15.07.2006, but the number ‘1’ before ‘5’ was darkened by a pen. Except the corrections of date in column-VII of the postmortem examination report (Ext.10) the evidence of P.W.11 was not shaken during cross-examination as regard to the case of death and nature of injuries found on the deceased. In column-9 (date and hour of postmortem Examination) and in column-VII (opinion of Surgeon as to cause of death) and below the signature of P.W.11, in Ext.10/1, the date has been mentioned as 05.07.2006. So, the correction made by P.W.11 in Ext.10 in no way affects the prosecution case. The correction was made without any mala-fide intention. So, the evidence of P.W.11 is reliable.
7
The inquest reports, Ext.2 and Ext.3 reveal that the head was severed from the body. The time since death as mentioned in postmortem examination report also corroborated the time as reflected in the F.I.R. Considering the evidence of P.W.11 and the inquest report, postmortem examination report, we hold that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.
8
case is required to be carefully assessed to come to the conclusion whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
circumstances to have been proved by the prosecution in furtherance of its effort to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, (in addition to the fact that the death of the deceased was found to be homicidal in nature). It reads as follows:
ii. deceased was found living till 12.30 P.M. (noon) on 04.07.2006 and thereafter his dead body was found in the house of accused;
iii. accused was present in the house where the dead body of the deceased was lying and the door of the house was closed from inside,
homicidal death, and
9
ix. chemical examination report establish reveals human blood stains were found from the nail clippings of the accused and the axe and sickle seized from the house of accused.
argues that there is no direct evidence in this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant solely basing on presumption because the dead body of the deceased was found in his house. Hence, she prays that the appeal may be allowed and conviction and sentence be set aside.
of the Code about the complicity of his father in commission of the crime, but he fairly concedes that since the document has not been marked and
10
the witness has not been examined that statement cannot be taken into consideration.
Developing his case, the learned Additional Standing
Counsel further submits that the vital circumstances like shutting of the house of the appellant from inside; breaking open of the door by the villagers; finding the accused inside the house and the dead body of the deceased (his head completely severed from his rest of the body) in one of the room; which is used as store room as well as puja room; presence of blood in the samples collected from the spot and the wearing apparel of the deceased, presence of human blood on the wearing apparel of the appellant Baikuntha and presence of human blood on the weapon of offence together with absence of any kind of explanation from the appellant establish the case for the prosecution. He further argues that presence of young boy aged about 8 years at the spot of occurrence, the boy was sitting on Mancha (wooden plat-form) inside the house reveal that he has been put there by his father so that he cannot interfere with the activity of the appellant also will not help the prosecution in any manner. Therefore, the learned Additional Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the appeal.
11
outside. After sometime, he was informed by his wife that deceased was picking up quarrel with different persons. So he went in search of the deceased and ultimately came to know that deceased had gone to the house of the appellant and the appellant’s house was closed from inside. They broke open the door of the house and found the son of the accused sitting on the top of wooden platform inside the house and they rescued him. They pulled the accused outside. At that time, they saw the dead body of the deceased was lying inside the last room of the house of the accused and the head was severed from the rest of the body. His evidence receiving support from the evidences of P.W.6, Hrudachandra Patel and P.W.8, Janardan Panigrahi. P.W.2, Rajkumar Nayak has also supported the case of the prosecution in part.
(i) when the witnesses reached the house of the accused it was closed
from outside;
12
(ii) they forced open the door and found son of the appellant was sitting on the wooden plat form (Mancha) and he was rescued;
(iii) they found the appellant present in the house;
(iv) the dead body of the deceased, “head severed from his body”, was found inside the house;
(v) there were blood stains on the floor which on chemical examination were found to be human blood;
(vi) the weapons of offence i.e. one sickle and one axe were found to be stained with human blood;
(vii) the wearing apparel of the deceased were stained with blood;
(viii) on postmortem examination it was found that the death of deceased was homicidal;
(ix) the nail clippings of the appellant on chemical examination were found to be stained with human blood; and
(x) the convict-appellant did not give any kind of explanation. In fact, in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations stating the same to be false, which provides an additional link or circumstance.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
The Trial Court Records (T.C.Rs) be returned back to the
trial court forthwith along with copy of this judgment.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy / downloaded copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies, subject to attestation by Mrs. C. Kasturi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15.04.2021.
….…………………… S. K. Mishra, J.
Savitri Ratho, J. I agree.
...... . ………………… Savitri Ratho, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 21st June, 2021/T.TUDU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cumulative circumstantial evidence establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the failure to record the statement of the minor son of the accused vitiates the conviction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baikuntha Bihari Dansana
State of Orissa
S. K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
