Dismissed

Nayak Munda v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC5 Sept 2023JCRLA/35/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the criminal appeal filed by an appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his mother-in-law with a tangia. The court held that the evidence of the three deceased's surviving sons was truthful and consistent, and the discrepancies raised against them were minor and did not shake their reliability. It confirmed the trial court's judgment of life impri

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2016 was confirmed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA NO.35 OF 2017

¶2

In the matter of an Appeal under section-383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17^th March, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.42/80 of 2014.

¶3

¶4

…. Nayak Munda Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent

¶5

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ================================================ For Appellant - Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶6

DATE OF HEARING:25.08.2023 :DATE OF JUDGMENT:05.09.2023

¶7

D.Dash, J. The Appellant from inside the jail has assailed the

¶8

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17^th March, 2016

¶9

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.42/80 of 2014 arising out of Lahunipara P.S. Case No. 83 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.400 of 2013 of the file of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bonai.

¶10

Page 1 of 10

¶11

JCRLA NO.35 OF 2017

¶12

¶13

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and accordingly, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months.

¶14

2 . Prosecution Case :-

¶15

On 16.10.2013 around 11 am, one Butu Munda (Informant-

¶16

P.W.3) submitted a written report with the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC), Lahunipara P.S. He stated therein that in the previous night, around 8 pm, when her mother-Massuri Munda was sleeping on the verandah of the house; accused came there holding a Tangia and dealt severe blows on her neck and chest, causing her death at the spot. It is also stated that the younger brother of Butu (Informant-P.W.3) namely, Rabi Munda (P.W.4), who was sleeping near his mother had seen the incident in his own eyes and he had so informed Informant (P.W.3).

¶17

The IIC (P.W.9) receiving the said written report treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.6) and upon registration of the case, took up investigation.

¶18

3 . The Investigating officer (I.O.-P.W.9) examined the Informant

¶19

(P.W.3) and went to the spot. Visiting the spot, he prepared a spot map (Ext.10). Seeing the dead body lying on the verandah of the

¶20

Page 2 of 10

¶21

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶22

¶23

house, he held inquest over the same in presence of the witnesses and

¶24

prepared report Ext.7. He also seized the blood stained and sample earth from the spot under seizure list, Ext.4; the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination. The accused being apprehended from his house is said to have made a statement to give recovery of the Budia (Tangia) if would be taken to the place of its keeping. It is stated that accused pursuant to his statement, took the I.O.(P.W.9) and others to the place i.e. near the house of Kala Munda and from near a bush, gave recovery of that Tangia, which the I.O. (P.W.9) seized under seizure list, Ext.8. The accused was forward in custody to Court. The incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted by the I.O.(P.W.9), placing the accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section-302/201 of the IPC.

¶25

4 . Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.) Bonai having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the said offences and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge against the accused for the said offences.

¶26

5 . In the Trial, the prosecution examined in total seventeen (9)

¶27

witnesses. As already stated one of the sons of the deceased, who is

¶28

Page 3 of 10

¶29

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶30

¶31

the Informant and had lodged the F.I.R.(Ext.6) scribed by P.W.6 is P.W.3; whereas the other son who was sleeping near his motherdeceased and is the eye witnesses has come to the witness box as P.W.4. P.W.5 is also a brother of the P.W.3 and 4, who arrived at the place being informed by P.W.3 in that night. The Doctor who had conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.1; whereas the P.W.7 & 8 are two other co-villagers

¶32

of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.9.

¶33

The prosecution besides leading evidence by examining the above witnesses has proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 14. Out of those, the important are the F.I.R.(Ext.6), inquest report, Ext.7, postmortem report, Ext.1. The spot map has been admitted in evidence and marked through its author - I.O. (P.W.9) as Ext.10.

¶34

6 . The accused being called upon has not tendered any evidence in support of his defence of complete denial and false implication.

¶35

7 . The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence of the prosecution evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has established the charges against the accused to have intentionally caused the death of Massuri Munda beyond reasonable doubt.

¶36

Page 4 of 10

¶37

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶38

¶39

8 . Learned Counsel for the Appellant(accused) submitted that the

¶40

Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 who are highly interested witnesses has abruptly arrived at a conclusion that they are truthful witnesses. According to him, in view of the discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, the Trial Court ought to have held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused in support of the same. In connection with the same, he has taken us through the depositions of those three witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are vulnerable.

¶41

9 . Learned Counsel for the State-Respondent submitted all in favour of the finding of guilt against the accused as has been rendered by the Trial Court. According to him, the evidence of P.W.3 being read, it would be evident that practically his evidence has gone unimpeached in every respect. He further submitted that viewing the discrepancies with regard to the exact place where the incident took

¶42

place as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused; placing the deposition of P.Ws. 3 and 4, which is too minor, the evidence of P.W.4 can never be thrown aside, when the evidence of P.W.4 receive

¶43

Page 5 of 10

¶44

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶45

¶46

corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5, as to the immediate disclosure of the incident implicating the accused before them.

¶47

10. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Trial Court and we have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 9 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 14.

¶48

11 . The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of

¶49

the deceased has been examined as P.W.1. He has stated to have found two deep incised injuries on the neck of the deceased; one on the anterior aspect and another on posterior aspect. He also deposed about dimensions of the injuries and their specific seat. It is his evidence that such injuries are antemortem in nature and might has been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as the axe, which he had examined and reported vide Ext.2. The injuries noticed by him through postmortem examination are found to have noted by him in his report Ext.1. This P.W.1 citing its severity and criticality has denied the suggestion of the defence that such injuries are possible by fall on any sharp cutting weapon. In addition of the above, we find the evidence of P.W.9, who had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and noted the same in the report, Ext.7. It is also the

¶50

Page 6 of 10

¶51

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶52

¶53

evidence of P.Ws.3,4 and 5 and others that they had seen the injuries on the person of the deceased. With the above evidence remaining unchallenged; we find absolutely no difficulty in concluding that the death of Massuri Munda was homicidal in nature.

¶54

12 . Now coming to complicity of the accused as has been found by the Trial Court which is under challenge in this Appeal by advancing the submission as noted above, let’s critically examined the evidence

¶55

of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 who are the three sons of the deceased.

¶56

P.W.4 is the star witness for the prosecution. He has stated that

¶57

in the relevant night, he was sleeping with his mother on the verandah and it was around 8.30 pm in the night, when the accused came with a ‘tangia’(axe) inside the house and dealt two blows on her mother, causing profuse bleeding, leading to instantaneous death. He has further stated that the accused immediately assaulting his mother, Massuri Munda, left the place carrying the tangia with him. He states to have immediately proceeded and reached out P.W.3, who is his younger brother. It is his evidence that when he was sleeping on the verandah, P.W.4 rushed to him and told the accused to have inflicted Tangia blows on her mother. He has further stated that when he went to the spot, he found the accused to have already left place leaving his

¶58

mother in a severely injured condition with profuse bleeding. Thus,

¶59

Page 7 of 10

¶60

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶61

¶62

when P.W.4 states to have disclosed about the occurrence immediately before P.W.3, that is fully supported by P.W.3. P.W.4 when no time has detailed the incident implicating the accused before P.W.3, that P.W.3 is not even exaggerating an inch about the incident by honestly stating to have not seen the accused when he arrived at the spot, thus, expressing no over anxiousness in directly implicating the accused.

¶63

The evidence of P.W.4 has practically remained unchallenged. During cross-examination, his attention has only been drawn to the fact that he has not specifically stated before the I.O. (P.W.9) in course of investigation to have gone to P.W.3 in telling him about the incident and thereafter to have informed his other brother P.W.5.

¶64

13 . The I.O. (P.W.9) has stated that it was not so specifically stated by P.W.4. Even if we accept for a moment that P.W.4 had not stated previously as to have informed P.W.3 and P.W.5; that hardly affects the evidence of P.W.4 so as to be viewed suspicion or even to doubt his presence at the spot seeing the accused as the assailant of his mother. The criticism in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 regarding the place where their mother was sleeping i.e. whether in the room or verandah is of no significance, when we get the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.9), who he found the dead body to be lying on the verandah of

¶65

Page 8 of 10

¶66

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶67

¶68

the house, where he held inquest over the same and when it has not been brought from any of the witnesses that the deceased was shifted from the spot after the incident.

¶69

14 . The other son of the deceased P.W.5 has also stated that the P.W.4 had immediately disclosed about the occurrence to him by coming to his house which at a distance of 400 cubits from the spot house. When none of the witnesses have stated about the probable motive of the part of the accused strangely enough, it has been brought out during cross-examination that accused was not in good relationship with the deceased as he was suspecting her to be practising witchcraft. Further, support comes to Evidence of this P.W.4 derives further support from the evidence of P.W.9 as to the seizure of the tangia at the instance of the accused under seizure list, Ext.8 and the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.1) that the injuries are possible by means of that tangia.

¶70

In the wake of discussion of evidence as above, we find the witnesses P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 to be truthful and their version to be wholly consistent and reliable.

¶71

On a conspectus of discussion of evidence as hereinabove, we are of the view that the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court against the accused for commission of the offence under section-302

¶72

Page 9 of 10

¶73

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

¶74

¶75

of IPC is well in order and the accused has rightly been convicted thereunder.

¶76

15 . In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.42/80 of 2014 are hereby confirmed.

¶77

Narayan

¶78

(D. Dash),
Judge.
Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree.
(Dr.S.K.Panigrahi),
Judge.

¶79

Signature Not Verified

¶80

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2023 11:56:30

¶81

Page 10 of 10

¶82

JCRLA NO. 35 OF 2017

Nayak Munda v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayak Munda v. State of Orissa

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

Banthu @ Biranchi Swain Vs State of Odisha

Kunu Pujhari Vs State of Odisha

Chitrasen Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Bina@Binod Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Misra Bag Vs State of Orissa