Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Pandu Gouda

Orissa HC4 Jul 2023GCRLA/42/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the state's appeal against the Sessions Judge's acquittal of respondents charged with common intention to kill. The court held prosecution evidence from two interested eyewitnesses was unreliable as it lacked corroboration from medical evidence showing no external injuries inconsistent with the offence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondents maintained.

State of Orissa Vs Pandu Gouda — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

GCRLA No. 42 of 2007

¶3

State of Odisha …. Appellant -versus- Pandu Gouda and Others …. Respondents

¶4

Advocates, appeared in this case:

¶5

For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr. Prabhas Chandra Panda
Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
JUDGMENT
04.07.2023

¶6

The State-Appellant has filed this appeal against an order dated 24^th June, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur acquitting the Respondent-Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC in S.C. No.9 of 2003.

¶7

The Respondent was charged with having committed murder of Tarini Gouda on 22^nd July, 2002 at 4.30 am at village Bazar Guma in the district of Ganjam.

¶8

There were two eye-witnesses projected by the prosecution viz., Ranka Gouda (PW 2) and Ujala Gouda (PW 8). While PW 2

¶9

G CRLA No.42 of 2007

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

was the son-in-law of the deceased, PW 8 was the son. Both were therefore interested witnesses and their evidence had been carefully scrutinized. The trial Court was required to look for independent corroboration.

¶12

The case of the prosecution was that all the Respondents got together with the common intention to kill the deceased. On the fateful day, they surrounded him and given him kick and fist blows, as a result of which he died.

¶13

The trial Court noted that the testimonies of the above witnesses were not corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Sachidananda Mohanty (PW 9) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He did not find even one external injury. The four internal injuries were opined to have been caused ‘due to hard and blunt trauma’. The cause of death was ‘cardio-genic’ shock on account of injuries to the heart.” While he gave an opinion that the internal injuries was possible on account of ‘forcible kicks and fist blows’, in his cross examination, he stated that the deceased was already suffering from heart ailments. In particular, he stated as under:

¶14

“In the examination of the heart of the deceased during internal examination, I found that the heart condition of the deceased prior to his death was not healthy. This I say as the coronary artery was blocked by 60 percent. In addition to the above blockage, the deceased was having concentric hypertrophy in left ventricle, which was suggestive of hypertensive cardiac disease in the deceased. A moderate amount of force exerted on the heart area

¶15

G CRLA No.42 of 2007

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

of a person having heart ailment may cause the injury in the heart of the like nature, which I found during the internal examination of the deceased.”

¶18

The trial Court on an analysis of the evidence of PW 2 and 8, in light of the above medical evidence, rightly doubted the correctness of their version. Given the manner of the assault as described by them, it was indeed surprising that there was not even one external injury found on the body of the deceased. Further, PW 2 claimed that he noticed the accused pressing the neck of the deceased by hands with a napkin. There were no marks of such strangulation found by PW 9 when he conducted the post-mortem.

¶19

Once it was clear that the evidence of PW 2 and 8 was unreliable, the prosecution case could be only substantiated by the other witnesses, who were unrelated to the deceased. However, PWs 3 and 4 by their own showing were post occurrence witnesses and, therefore, could not throw light on which of the Respondents may have been responsible for the killing of the deceased. PWs 1, 5 and 6 were formal witnesses and, therefore, could not throw much light on the actual occurrence.

¶20

Having carefully examined the entire evidence with the help of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is unable to come to a conclusion different from that reached by the trial Court in the matter. Indeed, the evidence led by the prosecution is wholly inadequate to convict any of the Respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Consequently, no

¶21

G CRLA No.42 of 2007

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

grounds have been made out for interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

(S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶25

(G. Satapathy)

¶26

Judge

¶27

S.K. Jena/Secy.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Jul-2023 10:25:43

¶30

G CRLA No.42 of 2007

¶31

Page 4 of 4

State of Orissa v. Pandu Gouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Pandu Gouda

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

State Vs Ganga Polai

State Vs Khema Ch.Parida

State Vs Jayapal Purty

Mulia Santa Vs State

Dillip Ku.Behera Vs State

Naba Behera Vs State