Dismissed

Prasant Mohanty v. State

Orissa HC16 May 2023CRLA/388/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Orissa dismissed the appeal by convicting the Appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that circumstantial evidence, including the nature of injuries, satisfied the constitutional test as the innocent hypothesis was firmly demolished.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine were affirmed.

Prasant Mohanty Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK.

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.388 of 2009

¶3

In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶4

--------------

¶5

Prasant Mohanty @ Prasant Kumar Mohanty

¶6

…… Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha …… Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Dash, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. S. Patnaik,
Additional Government Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
16 th May, 2023

¶7

S. Talapatra, J. This is an appeal by the convict (hereinafter referred to as

¶8

the Appellant) from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

¶9

dated 04.09.2009 delivered in Sessions Trial No.114 of 2008 by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani. By the said judgment, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. having observed that the

¶10

¶11

prosecution has proved the circumstances to constitute a complete chain

¶12

pointing at the guilt of the accused and eliminating any hypothesis consistent with innocence of the Appellant. What the Appellant has stated during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C (Ext.A), what he had pleaded in the prisoner’s petition submitted on 23.10.2008 and the suggestions given to the witnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 during their crossexamination are the pointers to the truthfulness of the evidence of P.W.5, the Appellant’s second wife. The Appellant had not denied the fact that he alone had taken the deceased to the hospital and from midway, he returned home with the child in the night of occurrence. The trial judge has observed that the evidence of P.W.5 is clear, consistent and convincing. Thus, it is trustworthy too. As consequence of the finding of conviction, as returned by the trial Judge, the Appellant has been awarded the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further period of six month rigorous imprisonment for committing offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The finding of conviction and the order of sentence are challenged in this appeal.

¶13

Page 2 of 25

¶14

¶15

Briefly stated, the prosecution case as emerged is that, the

¶16

Appellant has a son through his first wife. After the death of his first wife, the Appellant married Arati Pattnaik, the informant (P.W.5) against the wishes of his other family members. There had been some ill-feeling between the family members of the Appellant and the informant. However, the said relation improved for intervention of the relatives of P.W.5. P.W.5, the Appellant and other family members were staying in one house, but their kitchens were separate. The Appellant was anxious. He expected that his elder son will be properly looked after by P.W.5. But, the Appellant was dissatisfied as he found that his elder son was not getting proper care. On that issue, the Appellant was annoyed with P.W.5 and he used to misbehave with P.W.5 and the son born through her. Thereafter, the Appellant started to live in a separate house with the informant (P.W.5) and his son born through the informant. The elder son

¶17

born through the first wife stayed in his paternal house. P.W.5 has stated that the Appellant started torturing her and her son. On 30.07.2008, the informant’s son, namely, Chinu @ Sibaprasad (the deceased) who was suffering from dysentery was taken both by the Appellant and P.W.5 to

¶18

one Sita Mallik a sorcerer for enchantment. During some Jhadaphunka

¶19

Page 3 of 25

¶20

¶21

(sorcery), the deceased had passed a little stool. At about midnight at 12.30 A.M., the deceased was found suffering from acute dysentery. The Appellant took the deceased along with him saying that he would take the child for treatment in the hospital. When P.W.5 wanted to go with him, the Appellant asked her to stay home. After some time, the Appellant returned home with the dead body of Chinu. Then, the Appellant attempted for cremation of the deceased. The informant found marks of pressing injury around the neck and then she took the dead body of the deceased to a relative’s house at about 12.55 A.M. The said relative was staying in front of her house. P.W.5 telephoned her brother and intimated him about the occurrence. The Appellant had approached and insisted the informant several times to give the dead body of the child for cremation, but the informant refused. On the following day i.e. on 31.07.2008 at 6.30 A.M. the brother of the informant came and

¶22

thereafter, the informant was taken to the police station where she lodged the report at about 7.45 A.M. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the case. Inquest was carried out on the dead body of the deceased. The Investigating Officer got the autopsy done over the

¶23

dead body of the deceased and the autopsy report revealed that the death

¶24

Page 4 of 25

¶25

¶26

of the deceased was homicidal death resulting from antemortem asphyxia due to compression of neck. After examination of the witnesses and finding materials, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the Appellant. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the Appellant for causing murder of Chinu, the deceased. The Appellant denied the said charge and claimed to be tried in accordance

¶27

with law.

¶28

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge

¶29

examined as many as 10 witnesses, including the informant, (P.W.5) and the postmortem doctor, (P.W.6). That apart, the prosecution has adduced 09 documentary evidence, Exts.1 to 9, including the inquest report (Ext.1) and the postmortem examination report (Ext.3). For the defence, one witness, namely, Dhruba Charan Jena (D.W.1) was examined. After evaluation of the evidence, the Sessions Judge, Phulbani returned the finding of conviction as noted above.

¶30

Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the Appellant has

¶31

contended that the prosecution case has failed to prove the chain of

¶32

Page 5 of 25

¶33

¶34

circumstances and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. According to Mr. Dashh, learned counsel, the conviction is based on the evidence of P.W.5, the wife of the Appellant, P.W.2 and the evidence of neighbours P.Ws.3, 1 and 4. The motive according to the prosecution is to eliminate the son of the Appellant and the informant, who was aged about 10 months, out of extreme love and affection for his elder son,

¶35

through his first wife, and concerns for his future.

¶36

Apart from the motive, the circumstances that were heavily relied on for returning the finding of conviction, according to Mr. Dash, learned counsel are refusal to allow P.W.5, to accompany him while going to the hospitals for treatment of their son, Chinu (the deceased) and the Appellant’s return within 15 minutes with the dead body of the deceased with visible marks of bruises around the neck. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has submitted that the medical evidence has been put to

¶37

the chain of evidence for purpose of destroying the hypothesis of innocence. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has further asserted that the prosecution has been launched on the basis of the F.I.R. (Ext.2), lodged by P.W.5, the Appellant’s wife. The whole gamut of allegations of

¶38

causing murder of the deceased has been squarely denied by the

¶39

Page 6 of 25

¶40

¶41

Appellant. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has claimed that the Appellant has

¶42

been framed falsely, to silence him as he had found P.W.5 in compromising position with one Pratap Mallick, son of P.W.2. Out of rage, the Appellant slapped his wife. Pratap killed the deceased child by pressing his neck. In order to save Pratap and to shield her immoral act i.e. the extra marital relationship with Pratap, the report was filed in the police station, when the Appellant was in the custody of Town Police Station, Phulbani. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant

¶43

has reiterated that the four circumstances have been taken into consideration by the trial judge. Those are as follows:

¶44

(a) The Appellant had a motive to eliminate the deceased for the interest of his 1^st child born through 1^st wife.

¶45

(b) On the relevant night the Appellant in order to fulfill his desire did not like the informant (P.W.5) to accompany the deceased to hospital at this critical stage of dysentery.

¶46

(c) Within a small time gap of 15 minutes the Appellant returned back with dead body of the deceased; and

¶47

(d) The dead body of the deceased child was found with injury around the neck.

¶48

Mr. Dash, learned counsel has made a statement that the

¶49

defence story has been disbelieved by the trial judge having observed

¶50

Page 7 of 25

¶51

¶52

that when the son of the informant (P.W.5) was in a critical condition,

¶53

the informant’s indulgence in sexual acts in her house with somebody, that too within a small time-gap between the Appellant’s leaving for the hospital and coming back is not trustworthy. Thus, Pratap’s role in the murder has been discarded.

¶54

According to Mr. Dash, learned counsel, the F.I.R. has been

¶55

framed with false allegations due to the hostile relationship with the family of the Appellant, as a result of which, as would be evident from

¶56

the F.I.R. (Ext.2) both the Appellant and the Informant were staying in a separate rented house leaving the first child of the Appellant, from his first wife, with his parents. P.W.1, brother of the informant did not state anything about the hostile relationship. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has stated that the defence has proved the first information report lodged by

¶57

the Appellant (Ext.A). Even though the Officer-in-charge, Town Police Station did receive it but no action was taken by the police. The police has, later on, denied to have received any such report. According to Mr. Dash, learned counsel the said conduct demonstrates impropriety and unfair investigation. Evidence of P.W.7 and D.W.1 [a Clerk in Phulbani

¶58

Page 8 of 25

¶59

¶60

Jail] are contradicting each other. The Investigating Officer (P.W.7) has admitted in the cross-examination that the Appellant was examined while he was in jail custody on 18.08.2018. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has submitted that, he had no authority to examine him. In this juncture, we would hasten to note that, no part of the statement of the Appellant has been used as the evidence in the trial. According to Mr. Dash, learned counsel, the entire prosecution case is structured on suspicion and that suspicion has originated from the informant (P.W.5). Suspicion cannot lay foundation in place of substantive evidence. P.W.5 has admitted in the cross-examination that she had not disclosed the fact to anybody else, except P.Ws.2, 3 and her uncle Chandrajit Mohanty [not examined in the trial]. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has submitted that the circumstantial evidence has failed to point un-waveringly to the guilt of the Appellant. Motive behind the alleged crime has not been proved. Resisting the informant from going to the hospital may be for the reason that it was midnight and corroboration of the same by P.W.2 has got little importance when it is found from her evidence that she had suppressed the real fact during the examination-in-chief about her practice of black magic. The prosecution has not examined any of the

¶61

Page 9 of 25

¶62

¶63

family members of the Appellant to ascertain whether there was any element of hostility in the relationship of the informant and the Appellant. The Investigating Officer (P.W.7) has conducted the perfunctory investigation and he has deliberately stated that he had not received any written report, sent through the jail authority. Finally Mr. Dash, learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution case is totally shrouded in doubt and the chain of the circumstantial evidence is incomplete. Hence, the benefit be granted to the Appellant by acquitting him from the charge.

¶64

Per contra, Ms. S. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the circumstances have been proved and the proved episodes have formed a chain indicating the guilt of the Appellant that he had strangulated the

¶65

deceased and even tried to cause disappearance of the evidence by attempting to hurriedly cremate the dead body. That apart, the motive that has been stated cannot be ruled out. According to Ms. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, the medical evidence as placed on record by P.W.6 provides a strong and corroborative link in

¶66

Page 10 of 25

¶67

¶68

the chain of episodes of circumstances. The medical evidence has cogently proved the cause of death as asphyxia and not a natural death. The Appellant did not deny the fact. The Appellant, in order to defend himself, has introduced a story of adultery by P.W.5, which is improbable. No prudent person can believe it and the trial judge has rightly discarded that plea. When a story introduced by the Appellant is proved to be false, then the prosecution case gets further nourishment from such falsehood. In this juncture, Ms. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that, if the story was genuine, the Appellant was expected to rush to the police station to file the report against P.W.5 and her paramour. But, he has not done so. The Appellant had filed the petition only on 23.10.2008 from the judicial custody, whereas the occurrence took place on 30.07.2008. That itself shows that no such occurrence did take place. That apart, the Appellant had come across with the police but, he did not furnish any information regarding the extra-marital relation nor did he claim that he had reported that episode, after he had seen the informant and her paramour in the compromising situation. Ms. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the reason as provided by the trial judge for

¶69

Page 11 of 25

¶70

¶71

discarding the Appellant’s story is unimpeachable. Hence, the challenge against the judgment of conviction is bound to fall through.

¶72

For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions we may briefly survey the evidence on record. P.W.1, Jayachandra Pattnaik is the brother of Arati Pattnaik (P.W.5). He has stated that, he was intimated by his sister at midnight on 30.07.2008 that her son, Chinu had suffered from loose motion and on the pretext of taking him to the hospital, the Appellant took him out and a little thereafter he brought the dead body of Chinu. He was also informed that P.W.5 noticed marks of injuries on the neck of the dead body. She had suspected that the Appellant had killed the deceased by throttling. P.W.1 reached the house of the Appellant at about 6.A.M. in the morning. Having arrived there, he came to learn that his sister (P.W.5) had taken the dead body of the deceased

¶73

to her aunt’s house as the Appellant did threaten to cremate the dead body. Then P.W.1 rushed to his aunt’s house and found the dead body. At that time, his sister was also there. He had also noticed injury on the right side of the neck of the deceased. P.W.1 is also the witness to the inquest. He has admitted his signature on the inquest report (Ext.1).

¶74

Page 12 of 25

¶75

¶76

According to him, one Prasanta Mohanty had scribed the report. P.W.2, Sita Mallick admitted that the Appellant and his wife Arati came to their house and informed her that they were taking their son to the hospital, as he was suffering from acute loose motion . Thereafter, the Appellant took the son along with him and Arati stayed back in the house. When Arati wanted to accompany the child to the hospital, the Appellant declined the same by saying that she should stay back. After some time, the Appellant brought back the son and told them her son had died in the midway. P.W.2 had stated that she saw the injury on the right side of the neck of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.5 took the dead body to her aunt’s house. She has admitted that she used to practice black magic for treatment of the person suffering from ailments. She has, in the crossexamination, admitted that Arati brought her son for applying black magic. After applying the black magic, the deceased passed normal stool. The house of the Appellant, according to her, situate by the side of her house. She has categorically denied that her son Pratap used to visit the house of the Appellant. She denied the suggestions made by the defence in contrast to the statements made in the examination-in-chief.

¶77

P.W.3, Chandrama Mohanty is a next door neighbour of the Appellant.

¶78

Page 13 of 25

¶79

¶80

She has stated that on hearing row, she came to the house of the Appellant. Seeing her, Arati told that her son was suffering from loose motion and at that time, the Appellant took the son to the hospital. When Arati (P.W.5) wanted to accompany, the Appellant refused and then Arati stayed back. About 15 to 20 minutes thereafter, the Appellant returned back with the son and told that the son died in the mid-way. He handed over the dead body of the deceased to Arati. P.W.3 has stated thereafter, she noticed injuries on the right side of the neck near the ear of the deceased. Arati (P.W.5) told her that the deceased had been killed by the Appellant. She brought the dead body of the deceased to her house. The Appellant also came in front of their house, but he went away. Then, Arati intimated to her brother over phone and on the following morning, the brother of Arati came and thereafter the informant went to the police station along with her brother and reported

¶81

the matter to the police. She has testified that prior to the death of the deceased, there were quarrels between the informant (P.W.5) and her husband for about 3 to 4 times. The parents of the Appellant also used to quarrel with Arati. She has also confirmed that she did not enquire about

¶82

the reason behind such quarrel. In the cross-examination, she has stated

¶83

Page 14 of 25

¶84

¶85

that she is the maternal aunt of the informant. She had initiated the marriage proposal of the Appellant and Arati. By that time, all knew that the Appellant had a son of 5 years through his first wife. That son was staying with his parental grandparents and the Appellant was living with Arati in a rented house in front of their house. She was standing in front of her house when the Appellant brought back the child to her house. She denied to have made any false statement. P.W.4, Sri Amit Kumar Mohanty went to the house of the Appellant and found the injuries over the neck of the deceased child. The police reached at the spot soon after his arriving there. The police made the inquest over the dead body and he signed the inquest report (Ext.1), as the witness. In the crossexamination, he has denied the fact that the dead body was not there in the house of the Appellant at the time when the inquest was carried out. Jayachandra Pattnaik (P.W.1) is his uncle. He denied that he did not see the dead body at all. P.W.5 is the sterling witness of the prosecution and the wife of the Appellant. She has testified that in the month of July, her son Chinu suffered from loose motion. One Sita (P.W.2) used to apply black magic and perform “Jhadaphunka”. A neighbour took their son Chinu to her for “Jhadaphunka”. During mid night on the same day, after

¶86

Page 15 of 25

¶87

¶88

“Jhadaphunka”, she brought her son back to their house. Loose motion continued. Thereafter, the Appellant told that, he would take the child to the hospital. He took the child out of the house and asked her to stay back. The Appellant alone went to the hospital taking the ailing son. But, after 10 to 15 minutes, the Appellant returned with the child dead. He told that the child died in the midway. P.W.5 has testified that she found marks of injury and blood mark over the neck of the deceased child. When the Appellant wanted to take the dead body of his child for cremation, she refused and took the dead body of her son to her aunt’s house which situate two houses away from their house. She sent a message to her brother, who was staying at Balliguda. On the following day, her brother Jayachandra Pattnaik (P.W.1) and his wife came to Phulbani. She narrated to them the whole of the occurrence. Thereafter, she went to the police station along with her brother (P.W.1) and his wife and reported the matter to the police. She had stated that Prasanta Mohanty had scribed the report. After being read over, she had signed and filed the report (Ext.2) in the police station. She has narrated about the first marriage and the son of the Appellant from the first marriage.

¶89

That son was staying with his paternal grandparents. According to

¶90

Page 16 of 25

¶91

¶92

P.W.5, they had intention to kill her son so that the eldest son through

¶93

the first wife will enjoy all his properties. The police came and the inquest was carried out over the dead body of the deceased. In the crossexamination, P.W.5 has stated that she did not narrate the occurrence to anybody else, except Sita, Chandrama and uncle, the husband of Chandrama. Since she was not in a proper mind and was under shock due to the death of her son, she had not narrated to the police that the Appellant had killed her son with a view that his elder son through his first wife will enjoy the family properties. The father of the Appellant is a retired driver. P.W.5 had volunteered in the course of her examination that her parents-in-law had got landed properties. The Appellant demanded a golden chain from her parents. Out of fear, P.W.5 left the house of the Appellant and went away to her parents’ house. About one month prior to the death of the deceased, she was brought from her parents’ house. They stayed in the rented house at Phulbani Sahi. She denied the suggestion that the Pratap Mallick, son of P.W.2, was seen by the Appellant kissing her and for that she went away to her parents house. It has been denied by P.W.5 that on the very night when their son

¶94

was suffering from loose motion the Appellant went to the hospital to

¶95

Page 17 of 25

¶96

¶97

bring medicine. When the Appellant returned with the child with prescription and the Appellant found her in compromising position with Pratap Mallick inside their house, the Appellant assaulted her out of rage, and Pratap Mallick pressed the neck of the child and ran away from the spot. Out of fear, she took the dead body away from the house of the Appellant to the house of Chandrama and falsely implicated the Appellant at the instance of Chandrama and other relations. P.W.6, Dr. Shyama Prasad Panigrahi carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 31.07.2008 on being identified by Duryodhana Mallik, a constable of police and Jaya Chandra Pattnaik (P.W.1). During the postmortem examination, P.W.6 found the following external injuries:

¶98

“(i) Blackish discoloration of left side of the neck in semi circular fasion.

¶99

(ii) Bruise on the right side of the neck of size 3 to

¶100

4 mm. x 1 cm.

¶101

(iii) There was a gaping in the anus of the body.”

¶102

He has stated that on dissection, he found that hyoid bone was fractured.

¶103

The heart chamber of the left side was empty. Brain was congested. The

¶104

other organs were intact. The cause of death, according to him, was due

¶105

Page 18 of 25

¶106

¶107

to compression of neck resulting in asphyxia. Death took place within 24 hours preceding the postmortem examination. He has introduced the postmortem examination report (Ext.3) in the evidence. He has further stated that the bruise on the neck to the right side had affected deep impression over the skin. There was no ligature mark. The fracture of the hyoid bone was due to the compression of the neck. In the crossexamination, nothing material could be extracted out by the defence. P.W.7, Ashok Kumar Parida was Addl. Circle Inspector, Sadar and inCharge of Town Police Station. He had received the information from P.W.5 and registered the case. He investigated the case as well. He had visited the spot of occurrence/s, prepared the spot map and arranged for the inquest over the dead body. He conducted the inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext.1) in presence of the witnesses. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination by challan (Ext.5) with a constable, namely, Duryodhana Mallik to guard it. Some wearing materials from the dead body were handed over to him and he seized those materials by preparing the seizure list (Ext.7). On 09.08.2008, he received the postmortem examination report and submitted the charge-sheet thereafter. In the cross-examination, he has

¶108

Page 19 of 25

¶109

¶110

clearly stated that he did not receive any written complaint on 23.10.2008 when the Appellant was detained in the custody. He denied the suggestion that he entered one station diary entry dated 21.06.2008. But, he has admitted that when the Appellant was in jail, he had examined him on 18.08.2008. But, he did not take any formal permission from the Court for such examination of the Appellant. He has categorically denied that the Appellant had stated to him that one Pratap Mallick had illicit relation with his wife and he killed the child. Therefore, the question of recording such statement is not material. He has reiterated in the cross-examination that he did not receive any report from the jail. He denied that his investigation was perfunctory. P.W.8, Prasanta Kumar Mohanty had scribed the F.I.R. He has stated that at the dictation of the informant, he wrote the report and read it over to P.W.5 and thereafter she signed the report (Ext.2). He has admitted that Jaya Chandra Pattnaik is the uncle of P.W.5. P.W.9, Debendra Kumar Barala was the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police as on 30.07.2008. He was witness to the seizure of the wearing materials of the deceased from one police constable, namely, Duryodhan Mallick. P.W.10 was one of the police constables, who was posted in the Town Police Station on 31.07.2008.

¶111

Page 20 of 25

¶112

¶113

He was also the witness to the seizure of wearing materials of the deceased by preparing the seizure list (Ext.7).

¶114

In the examination as carried out under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., the Appellant has reiterated the plea of innocence and that when the Appellant returned from the hospital with the deceased son, he saw Pratap Kumar Mallick and his wife (P.W.5) were in a compromising position. They were maintaining an illicit relation. Pratap strangulated the Appellant’s son to death. In order to shield Pratap and his relation with P.W.5, a story had been weaved to frame the Appellant.

¶115

The Appellant, after the prosecution evidence was recorded,

¶116

adduced one witness, namely, Dhruba Charan Jena (D.W.1). D.W.1 testified that on 23.10.2008, the Appellant had given a petition to the Officer-in-Charge Town P.S. through the Superintendent of Circle Jail,

¶117

Phulbani. The Superintendent of the Circle Jail had forwarded the said petition (Ext.A) to the Officer-in-charge. He has identified Ext.A, which is the forwarding letter of the Superintendent Jail. He had produced both

¶118

the documents and the peon book, as per the summon of the Court. Ext.C is the relevant entry in the peon book under which the letter-Ext.A

¶119

Page 21 of 25

¶120

¶121

and Ext.B were sent to the Officer-in-Charge. The entries show that the Officer-in-charge had received the letter on 24.10.2008.

¶122

What has transpired from evaluation of the evidence is that the Appellant did not deny two episodes in the chain of circumstances viz, (i) that he took away the child (deceased) to the hospital and, (ii) he did not allow the informant (P.W.5) to accompany him and there is no explanation in this regard, in the face of the positive evidence of P.W.5. The other episode, which transpired from the medical evidence is that the death was caused by strangulation and the injury that was found on the body of the deceased was not an ordinary injury or the injury can be had only by compression. P.W.6, Dr. Shyama Prasad Panigrahi has clearly given the description of external injuries and the internal injuries and thereafter, concluded that the cause of death is asphyxia for strangulation. The fracture of hyoid bone is one of the indicators of strangulation. The opinion of P.W.6 has not been even questioned. The witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 have corroborated some of the circumstances, such as (a) the deceased was suffering from dysentery and he was taken for ‘Jhadaphunka’ to P.W.2 and (b) since the son continued to suffer

¶123

Page 22 of 25

¶124

¶125

from ailment as noted, it was felt necessary to take him to the hospital. P.W.3, Chandrama Mohanty, is the close relative. She has supported that P.W.5 did take the deceased to her house and on the following morning, she left for the police station with her brother (P.W.1) and the brother’s wife. The statement of P.W.4 is a little bit confusing about the place where the inquest was carried out. To dispel such confusion, the inquest report is sufficient. The inquest process has not been questioned. It is not necessary to point out that in order to explain the injury marks found over the right side of the neck, the Appellant has introduced a story of adultery after a month. He did not respond immediately, though he had got sufficient time and in the natural course of action, it is expected that he revealed it immediately to the police without a moment’s delay, if it was so that the death had been caused by Pratap Mallik, the alleged paramour of P.W.5. He did not visit the police station. According to him, he filed a report to the police station on 23.10.2008 and he narrated that story of adultery and murder for investigation. But P.W.7, Sri Ashok Kumar Parida, who investigated the case, has categorically stated that he did not receive any such report. However, Ext.A stands to show that

¶126

such report was deposited in the police station. What was written in the

¶127

Page 23 of 25

¶128

¶129

said report is totally undisclosed in the evidence. The Appellant has stated that he had reported the act of Pratap Mallik strangulating his son. No prudent person would believe that such occurrence had taken place in the manner as narrated by the Appellant and the Appellant held back the information from the police. Even, when he was in the police custody, he did not make any statement in that regard. P.W.7 has testified that the complaint was dispatched against the informant and one Pratap Mallick, but not about the content. Hence, it appears that a false story has been implanted to defend the Appellant. We cannot give any credence to such evidence. The motive of eliminating the deceased cannot be ruled out. 12. Thus, having appreciated the evidence cumulatively, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of conviction as returned by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani, in as much as, the hypothesis of innocence has been firmly demolished by the circumstantial evidence. A prudent man, considering those materials, would be satisfied to hold that the Appellant

¶130

had committed the murder. As we have already observed that the explanation given by the Appellant regarding the death of the deceased

¶131

Page 24 of 25

¶132

¶133

is totally improbable, we affirm the conviction under Section 302 of the

¶134

IPC and the consequential order of sentence.

¶135

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶136

If the physical records are still lying with the Registry,

¶137

those shall be returned forthwith.

¶138

……………………………
( S. Talapatra, J.)
Savitri Ratho, J. I agree.
……………………………
(Savitri Ratho, J.)

¶139

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 16^th day of May, 2023. Litaram Murmu, Senior Stenographer

¶140

Page 25 of 25

Prasant Mohanty v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasant Mohanty v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandramani Naik Vs State

Kalakar Dehury Vs State

Gopal Sethi Vs State

Subash Vs State

Shyama Dhibar Vs State

Surjya@Surya Banua Vs State