Dismissed

Lachhaman Munda v. State

Orissa HC26 Jun 2023JCRLA/28/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC dismissed. Court upheld conviction relying on extra-judicial confession, forensic evidence linking crow-bar to wounds, and witness testimony, rejecting defence arguments regarding investigation lapses and co-accused acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellant was directed to surrender to the Sessions Court by a specified date.

Lachhaman Munda Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

Jail Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2005

¶3

From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.139 of 2001.

¶4

-------------
Lachhaman Munda …… Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa …… Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Ms. B.L. Tripathy, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. J. Katikia,
Additional Government Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
HONOURABLE MISS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
26 th June, 2023

¶5

S. Talapatra, J. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of conviction

¶6

and sentence dated 29.11.2004 delivered in S.T. Case No.139 of 2001

¶7

(corresponding to G.R. Case No.198 of 2000 and Champua P.S. Case

¶8

No.152 of 2000) by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. By the said judgment,

¶9

¶10

the Appellant-Lachhaman Munda has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. It may be noted for reference that he has been acquitted from the charge as framed under Section 201 of the IPC.

¶11

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, on 21.10.2000 at night the Appellant assaulted one Janamjoy Munda. It has surfaced from the records that there was a dispute between the wife of the Appellant and the Appellant. On the fateful night, the Appellant called the deceased and his wife to accompany him in order to settle the dispute with his wife. The deceased and his wife accompanied him. On the way,

¶12

the Appellant attempted to assault the wife of the deceased namely Sankiri Munda, P.W.1. P.W.1 could save herself. But, the Appellant had assaulted the deceased with an iron rod. He had also stabbed him. The deceased fell down on the ground. The informant ran away from the place out of fear. On the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found near a cow-dung pit. P.W.1 lodged the information in the Champua Police Station. Based on the said information, Champua P.S. Case No.152 of 2000 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed charge-sheeting the

¶13

Page 2 of 19

¶14

¶15

Appellant. In the appropriate stage, the charge was framed against the Appellant under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC. It may also be noted that the police had filed the charge-sheet against another person, namely, Sarasing Tiria for causing disappearance of evidence of offence for screening the offender and he had been charged under Section 201/34 of the IPC. Both the accused persons including the Appellant denied the

¶16

charge and claimed to be tried. On culmination of the trial, the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar acquitted the other accused from the said charge as the prosecution had completely failed to prove the charge against the said accused person.

¶17

In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as six witnesses including the informant, Investigating Officer and the doctor who carried out the postmortem examination over the dead body of Janamjoy Munda. That apart, the prosecution had introduced as many as 15 documentary evidence (Ext.1 to Ext.15) which include the postmortem examination report (Ext.2), injury report of the Appellant (Ext-4), the inquest report (Ext.7), the report of the Scientific Officer, District Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.14) and the chemical

¶18

Page 3 of 19

¶19

¶20

examination report (Ext.15). The weapon of offence (crow-bar) was also admitted in the evidence as the material object (M.O.I).

¶21

The defence did not adduce any evidence, oral or documentary.

¶22

After recording of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were separately examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. to have their response to the prosecution evidence. Both the accused

¶23

persons repeated their plea of innocence and denied the prosecution evidence as fabricated. After evaluation of the evidence, the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar returned the finding of conviction having observed that the extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant to P.W.2, a covillager cannot be discarded as inadmissible. That apart, the deceased and the Appellant were last seen together. Moreover, the Appellant had led to recovery of the weapon of offence (crow-bar). The plea of the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to offer any explanation about the injuries sustained by the Appellant and hence, it has to be inferred that the investigation was unfair. As consequence, the evidence against the Appellant ought to have been discarded by the trial judge as not reliable. But he had not done so. For not explaining how the Appellant received the injuries on his person, according to the defence,

¶24

Page 4 of 19

¶25

¶26

the prosecution case has become susceptible to doubt and hence, benefit should go to the Appellant. However, the trial judge has clearly observed as follows:

¶27

“14. The evidence on record clearly established a case u/s.302 I.P.C. against accused Lachhaman Munda, but there is no material on record implicating other accused Sarasing Tiria.”

¶28

Pursuant to the said finding of conviction under Section 302

¶29

of the IPC, the Appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous

¶30

imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC. But surprisingly no

¶31

fine has been awarded despite the mandate of the law.

¶32

Ms. B.L. Tripathy, learned counsel has at the outset

¶33

contended that as the co-accused has been acquitted on appreciation of the same set of evidence, the Appellant was due to be acquitted. But the Appellant has been perversely convicted.

¶34

The occurrence took place at about 9 pm on 21.10.2000. In the First Information Report, as lodged by P.W.1, it has been disclosed that the deceased and P.W.1 were preparing to have their dinner. The Appellant went to their house and informed that he had quarrel with his wife. He had requested them to come to his house and settle the dispute.

¶35

Page 5 of 19

¶36

¶37

They accompanied the Appellant. When they reached at a place near Mahua tree, the Appellant tried to assault P.W.1 by means of iron rod. P.W.1 ran away to save her life. Thereafter, the Appellant assaulted the deceased by the said iron rod. P.W.1 went home and had taken her children to a hideout. On the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found. She lodged the oral information, which was reduced in writing, to Champua Police Station. According to Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in as much as no independent witness had been examined from the nearby place, even though the name of one Damburu Naik was disclosed by P.W.1. The knife by which the Appellant was suspected to have committed the murder has not been recovered. Even the iron rod was not sent for chemical examination in order to establish its link with the offence. These are serious lapses which cannot be brushed aside for the simple reason that unless it is proved that the iron rod (crow-bar) was used for assaulting the deceased, the prosecution story is bound to suffer a serious set back. At this point, we have examined the chemical examination report dated 08.11.2001 issued by the Director & Chemical Examiner to the Government of Orissa, State

¶38

Page 6 of 19

¶39

¶40

Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. From the list of the exhibits sent for the examination, we find that one wooden lathi was

¶41

sent for the chemical examination, but the iron rod which was seized in

¶42

the course of the investigation was not sent for chemical examination.

¶43

Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel has strenuously contended that the prosecution had failed to explain how the Appellant received the injuries

¶44

on his person during the course of the occurrence and hence, it cannot be

¶45

stated that the Appellant had assaulted the deceased unprovoked. Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel has pointed out the following deficiencies in

¶46

the prosecution case:

¶47

(i) Oral evidence of P.W.1 has not been corroborated by P.W.4.

¶48

(ii) Motive of the Appellant has not been established.

¶49

(iii) Presence of P.W.1 at the spot is doubtful as she did not raise her voice at the time of occurrence for help, though people were around at the time of occurrence.

¶50

(iv) The prosecution has maintained silence about presence of lathi or knife at the spot.

¶51

(v) There is no proof of previous enmity or quarrel, at least that has not been established by the prosecution.

¶52

Page 7 of 19

¶53

¶54

(vi) On the same set of evidence, the co-accused has been acquitted.

¶55

Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel has closed her submission by

¶56

stating that the prosecution case is wholly unreliable and as such, the Appellant is entitled to acquittal from the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶57

Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate

¶58

having appeared for the State in order to repel the submission of Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellant has stated that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. According to him, there is no reason to disbelieve the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence.

¶59

Her testimony is quite elaborate and it does not leave any space to read her testimony differently. She has clearly stated that there was no enmity between her family and the Appellant. The suggestion that was made by the defence that P.W.1 stayed back at home has been squarely denied by P.W.1. Further suggestions were also denied as those were contrary to what P.W.1 had firmly stated in the examination-in-chief. As regards her leaving the place, P.W.1 has categorically stated that she came to her

¶60

house out of fear and fled to Arahar field in order to protect her children.

¶61

Page 8 of 19

¶62

¶63

She had spent the whole night in the said field. In the cross-examination, she has further stated as under:

¶64

“After assaulting my husband accused Lachhman returned to my house and he damaged the front door of my house. One Narottam had accompanied me to the Out-Post at the time of lodging of the report. I went to the Out-Post in the morning of the next day of the occurrence.”

¶65

P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that after reducing the oral

¶66

information in writing, the said writing was not read over to her. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate has distinctly stated that P.W.2 is an independent witness to whom the Appellant made the extra-judicial confession. In his words- “I saw accused Lachhaman Munda on next day of the occurrence on the village road. He stated before me that as he has committed murder of his uncle Janamjoy, the police is searching him. ” The said statement has not been confronted in the cross-examination as was expected. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government has further submitted that P.W.4, Dr. Girish Chandra Rout had found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:

¶67

(i) Incised wound 1 ½ x 1/2” x 1/4 over left side of face.

¶68

Page 9 of 19

¶69

¶70

(ii) Incised wound 1” x 1/2 x 1/4” over left side of forehead with fracture of underlying frontal bone. (iii) Lacerated wound 3” x 2” x 1” over left side of mouth around its angle.

¶71

(iv) Fracture and dislocation of left lower jaw bone (mandible), 1” lateral to midline (Chin).

¶72

(v) Incised wound 2 ½” x ½” x 1/4” over lower lip. (vi) Lacerated wound of 2” x 1 ½” x 1” over bridge of nose with fracture of nasal bone.

¶73

(vii) Abrasion 5” x 1” over left side of back.

¶74

(ix) Fracture of temporal lobe of left side.

¶75

Further he has stated that on dissection he found the

¶76

following injuries as well:

¶77

“ (i) Disruption of dura mater in right frontal region and left temporal region with multiple hematoma under the duramater at several places and brain matter coming out side through the injury of the right forehead.

¶78

(ii) Fractures of ribs 5^th , 6^th and 7^th of right side.

¶79

(iii) Multiple lacerated wound over liver with presence of alter blood inside peritoneal cavity.”

¶80

According to P.W.4, all the injuries were antemortem in

¶81

nature. P.W.4 has clearly opined that the incised wound might have been

¶82

caused by a sharp cutting weapon or by a knife and the lacerated wounds

¶83

might have been caused by hard and blunt object. The injury to brain and

¶84

Page 10 of 19

¶85

¶86

liver were sufficient to cause death. The cause of death is ascertained to

¶87

be shock and haemorrhage, resulting from multiple injuries including

¶88

fracture of various bones. P.W.4 has assessed the time of death

¶89

tentatively. P.W.4 had also examined the crow-bar as claimed to have

¶90

been recovered being led by the Appellant on 26.10.2000. On examination, P.W.4 has clearly opined that injuries mentioned in the

¶91

postmortem examination report (Ext.2) can be possible by the said crowbar. He has identified his report (Ext.3) where he had recorded his

¶92

opinion about the crow-bar (M.O.1). There was no effective crossexamination of P.W.4.

¶93

P.W.5, Dr. Dharani Ranjan Satpathy, had examined the

¶94

Appellant on 23.10.2000 and he found the following injuries on his

¶95

person:

¶96

(i) Scratch mark 1/3” in length situated over left side of face 1” away from left angle of mouth.

¶97

(ii) Scratch mark ½” in length situated over dorsal aspect of distal phalanx of left middle finger.

¶98

The injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by pointed tip of a hard object.

¶99

P.W.5 had collected blood sample and nail-clippings of the

¶100

Appellant. Those are reflected in the seizure list, Ext.4.

¶101

Page 11 of 19

¶102

¶103

Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate has

¶104

further contended that a fair investigation has been carried out by P.W.6, Tejraj Patel. According to Mr. Katikia, multitude of witnesses do not determine the scale of probity and it is the quality of the evidence. Even a few witnesses may make the Court confident to come to inference as regard who had committed the offence. It has been contended by Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate that the prosecution has proved the charge against the Appellant to the hilt and hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed without further consideration.

¶105

In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it will be apposite to take a meaningful survey of the evidence as recorded in the trial. As P.W.1 has clearly stated that when she was likely to be assaulted by the Appellant, she ran away from the place of occurrence, out of fear, the Sessions Judge has relied on the circumstantial evidence heavily. P.W.1 is one of the important witnesses as she had not only lodged the oral information in the Champua Police Station on 22.10.2000, the following day of the occurrence, but she has also testified in the trial and stated un-ambiguously in the trial that the Appellant is the nephew of the deceased, her husband. According to her,

¶106

Page 12 of 19

¶107

¶108

the occurrence took place at about 9 pm in the night about 4 years ago from the date of her deposing in the trial. She (P.W.1) and her husband

¶109

were at the house and they were preparing to have their dinner at that time. The Appellant came and told that he had quarreled with his wife and they should go to his house to settle the said dispute. She has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that the Appellant was

¶110

holding an iron rod. They were accompanied by the Appellant towards his house. The Appellant was walking ahead of them and P.W.1 and her husband were following him. When they reached at a place nearby Mahua tree, the Appellant took at turn and tried to assault her with an iron rod. She could avoid the assault by taking a quick-move away. He had assaulted him, on his head and other parts of his body with the iron rod. Out of fear, she ran away from the place of occurrence. Her husband did not return home on that night. On the next day, she found her husband lying dead near a cow-dung pit at a distance from the place nearby Mahua tree where the occurrence took place. She had identified the oral report which was filed by her. In the cross-examination, the prosecution could not make any dent. But she has stated that when the accused visited their house that was a dark night, but a dibiri (lamp) was

¶111

Page 13 of 19

¶112

¶113

held by her. She had denied the suggestions that her husband was

¶114

holding a knife or her small child was in her arms. She had denied the suggestions that her husband had engaged in a tussle with the Appellant. She has in clear terms stated in the cross-examination that after assaulting her husband, the Appellant returned to their house and damaged their front door. One Narottam had accompanied her to the

¶115

Out-Post when she lodged the First Information Report (FIR). She has denied the suggestions that after the oral report was reduced in writing, the police did not read its content to her. P.W.1 account is partly of an eyewitness and partly of strong circumstance wholly indicating that the Appellant but none has committed murder of her husband.

¶116

P.W.2, Kanhu Munda, is a co-villager of P.W.1. He has

¶117

clearly stated that the Appellant had confessed that he had killed Janamjoy Munda, the husband of P.W.1. No effective cross-examination

¶118

was carried out. Even the defence did not confront the statement that the

¶119

Appellant made an extra-judicial confession to P.W.2.

¶120

P.W.3, namely Bishrabandhu Naik, was an elected member

¶121

of Panchayat of the village-Sankarpur. He has testified that in his presence, the Appellant had brought out the crow-bar from the corner of

¶122

Page 14 of 19

¶123

¶124

the door of his house. When the crow-bar was brought out, the Appellant

¶125

had stated in presence of the police that he had assaulted Janamjoy

¶126

Munda by that crow-bar. The crow-bar was seized from that place in presence of witnesses. He had denied the suggestions that he did not have good relation with the Appellant.

¶127

P.W.4, Dr. Girish Chandra Rout has been discussed

¶128

elaborately while recording the submissions of the learned counsel for

¶129

the parties.

¶130

P.W.5, Dr. Dharani Ranjan Satpathy has also been

¶131

discussed while recording the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶132

P.W.6, Tejraj Patel is the investigating officer. He had

¶133

introduced in the evidence the First Information Report (Ext.5). According to P.W.6, after he received Ext.5, he had taken up the investigation. He has further stated that he found one lathi near the spot. P.W.6 has given a short account how he had conducted the investigation

¶134

in different phases. It has been stated by P.W.6 that he had sent the Appellant for medical examination and later on, he collected the injury

¶135

Page 15 of 19

¶136

¶137

report from P.W.4. He has also stated that he had collected the opinion of P.W.4 as regards whether injuries on the body of the deceased could

¶138

be caused by the crow-bar. On completion of investigation, he found a strong prima facie case against the Appellant and the co-accused, and as such, he filed the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. by sending both the accused person to face the trial.

¶139

We have scrutinized the various reports, but we do not find

¶140

any incongruity in those reports when compared. Moreover, those corroborate the oral evidence. As such, we are unable to accept the plea as raised by Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. According to us, the fact of making the extra-judicial confession by the Appellant to P.W.2 could

¶141

not be dented by the defence. P.W.2 does not appear to be a planted witness. His testimony is natural and trustworthy. Moreover, the defence did not confront his statement as regards the extra-judicial confession. At the same time, the statement of the wife that she saw the Appellant, assaulting her husband with the crow-bar and knife has not also been successfully confronted. Even her statement that she saw the Appellant assaulting her husband brutally by the crow-bar could not be brought

¶142

Page 16 of 19

¶143

¶144

down even partly by thorough cross-examination. Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel has, however, challenged the presence of P.W.1 in the place of occurrence. According to her, P.W.1 cannot be trusted. The defence did not lead any evidence to show that P.W.1 was not present at the place of occurrence when the offence took place. P.W.1 has stood by her statement and no part of her statement has been dented by cross-

¶145

examination. We do not find any reason to accept the objections as raised regarding her presence at the place of occurrence. So far as injuries on the person of the Appellant is concerned, no doubt it was the duty of the investigation to find out how those injuries were received by the Appellant. But for absence of such investigation, the substantive part of the investigation cannot be discarded on the plea of defects in the investigation. Hence, the substantive evidence as recorded cannot be thrown out. The defence had opportunity to prove how the injuries had

¶146

been received by the Appellant, if they had any plea to raise in the line that there was a scuffle between two persons and out of sudden rage, the Appellant had assaulted the deceased or the Appellant had in selfdefence murdered the deceased. The defence cannot build of their case entirely on the failure of the investigation on any part. They are to give

¶147

Page 17 of 19

¶148

¶149

evidence when they want to reap benefit, or in order to probabilise their defence. But the defence did not adduce any evidence as already noted by us. Therefore, on the face of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, we have no hesitation to hold that the finding of conviction does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶150

Before parting with the records, we would like to note that

¶151

the charge under Sections 201/34 of the IPC could not be established against the accused persons. It cannot imply that the charge under Section 302 of the IPC has to fail against the Appellant, which adequate evidence in support of the said charge has been placed by the prosecution.

¶152

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶153

We direct the Appellant, who had been enlarged on bail by this Court, to surrender before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar by 28^th July, 2023. In the event of failure to surrender before the said Court by the Appellant, all coercive measures shall be taken by the Court to bring him back to jail, so that he serves out the remaining period of sentence.

¶154

Page 18 of 19

¶155

¶156

A copy of this order be forwarded to the Court of the

¶157

Sessions Judge, Keonjhar forthwith.

¶158

LCRs, if any, lying with the Registry be returned.

¶159

………………………….

¶160

( S. Talapatra, J.)

¶161

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

¶162

Signature Not Verified

¶163

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 27-Jun-2023 19:14:06

¶164

Page 19 of 19

Lachhaman Munda v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhaman Munda 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

Manjushree Gantait Vs Suman Gantait

Tulasi Swain Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Samal Vs Jayshree Biswal

Ananta Charan Tripathy Vs Sarita Satapathy

Goutam Samal Vs State of Odisha

Bhaskar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha