Dismissed

Madhab Madkami v. State

Orissa HC6 Jul 2023JCRLA/53/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. It distinguished the cited precedent where the injury was on a non-vital part, noting here the fatal stab on a vital area resulted from premeditation and lack of provocation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

What the court decided

Madhab Madkami Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.53 of 2011

¶2

Madhab Madkami

¶3

Madhab Madkami …. Appellant -versus…. State of Odisha Respondent

¶4

Advocates appeared in this case:

¶5

For the Appellant : Mr. Rabindra Nath Nayak,
Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. G.N. Rout,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
JUDGMENT
06.07.2023

¶6

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31^st May 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No.45 of 2010 convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six months.

¶7

The Appellant was charged having committed the murder of one Sankarasrita Panda who was having a grocery shop in his house in village Korkonda in Malkangiri District on 14^th June, 2010 at around 4PM.

¶8

Signature Not Verified

¶9

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:10

¶10

JCRLA No.53 of 2011

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

There were several eye witnesses to the occurrence and one of them i.e., Madan Mohan Ratha (P.W.5) was an independent witness. According to him, the Appellant came to the shop of the deceased on the aforementioned date at around 4PM and asked for some money. The deceased told him that he would do so after four or five days. Thereupon, the Appellant abused the deceased in filthy language, brought out a knife that was concealed in his back and gave one stab blow on the chest of the deceased.

¶13

The deceased was apparently first taken to the Korkonda Medical and thereafter was referred to the District Headquarters Hospital (DHH) at Malkangiri. However, at the DHH Hospital, the Doctor declared that the deceased had been brought dead. In other words, the death took place on the same date of the occurrence.

¶14

In his cross-examination, P.W.5 volunteered that the altercation between the accused and the deceased took place for almost half an hour.

¶15

P.W.8 is the wife of the deceased who corroborated in all material particulars the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.9 was the sisterin-law of the deceased who again corroborated in material particulars all that was stated by P.W.5. P.W.14, who is the younger brother of the deceased, volunteered that the Appellant was for sometimes working as a labourer in the house of the deceased. All witnesses consistently spoke of the altercation between the accused and the deceased preceding the stabbing of the deceased on the chest by the accused.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:10

¶18

JCRLA No.53 of 2011

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

The eye-witness testimony of P.W.5 as well as other prosecution witnesses, some of whom were related witnesses, has received corroboration by the medical evidence of the Doctor viz., Dr. Shashi Bhusan Mohapatra (P.W.11) who noticed one external injury being an incised wound of 2” X 1” X3” over the thoracic abdominal part below the xiphisternum. On internal examination, he found the lower lobe of the left lung and lower part of ventricle found cut. He found heart empty and both lungs were looking pale. His opinion was that the death was as a result of massive haemorrhage resulting in cardio respiratory arrest as a result of the above injury. Nothing much has been elicited from this witness in his cross-examination and that throws any doubt on his testimony as to the cause of death.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks to rely on the judgment in Gokul Parashram Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1981) SCC (Cri) 731 to urge that this Court should consider the crime to be one punishable under Part I of Section 304 IPC since it was single stab wound with no premeditation.

¶22

A careful perusal of the above decision reveals that in that case a single stab injury was inflicted above left clavicle, a non-vital part, causing muscle deep incised wound. It was therefore concluded in that case that there was no intention on the part of the accused to murder the deceased. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 304 (Part-II) IPC was extended to him. However, in the present case, although it was a single stab wound with a knife, it was on a vital part which resulted in lower lobe of left lung and

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:10

¶25

JCRLA No.53 of 2011

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

lower part of the ventricle being cut. As a result, the heart was found empty and both lungs were looking pale upon postmortem.

¶28

With such a stab injury on a vital part of the body, it cannot be said that the Appellant did not intend to cause the death of the deceased. This was also not on account of the provocation as all that the unarmed deceased did was to ask the accused to come later for the money that he was asking. There was no occasion for any provocation leading to a crime of this nature. Moreover, the Appellant had already come prepared with a knife which he used to stab the deceased.

¶29

Consequently, this Court is not persuaded that the offence in the present case should be converted to one under Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 IPC.

¶30

Having examined the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not satisfied that any ground has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

(S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶32

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶33

S.K. Guin/PA

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2023 11:08:10

¶36

JCRLA No.53 of 2011

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Madhab Madkami v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Madhab Madkami v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mulia Santa Vs State

State of Orissa Vs Pandu Gouda

State Vs Ganga Polai

Dillip Ku.Behera Vs State

Naba Behera Vs State

Dillip Ku.Das Vs State