Lochan Moharana Vs State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008

An appeal from the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.160 of 2006, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶4

¶5

Lochan Maharana …… Appellant

¶6

- versus - State of Odisha …… Respondent

¶7

For Appellant :- Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) For Respondent:- Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶10

Date of Judgment : 17.04.2025

¶11

By the Bench

¶12

The Appellant namely Lochan Maharana faced trial in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.160 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201, IPC on the accusation that, on 18^th May, 2006 at about 11.00 AM at village Dandasenaposi under Pandapada P.S. of district Keonjhar, he committed murder of

¶13

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 1 of 14

¶14

his wife Mouna Maharana (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) and caused certain evidence connecting to the said offence to disappear. Learned trial court, vide judgment and order dated 17^th May, 2007 found no evidence against the Appellant Lochan Maharana so far as the charge under Section 201 of the IPC is concerned and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge. However, the learned trial court found the Appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶15

First Information Report was lodged by one Dasarathi Nag, S.I. of Police, who is also the Officer-in-Charge of Pandapada P.S. On the basis of the information of Lochan Maharana (accused-Appellant), Pandapada P.S. U.D. Case No.6 dated 18.05.2006 was registered, wherein it is stated that on 18.05.2006 at about 11.00 AM when he (Lochan) returned home from his work and asked his wife (the deceased) to serve rice to him, he found her dead, and accordingly he called the neighbours. During the course of enquiry in the U.D. Case by the ASI Mr. Gadadhar Dalei, as per the direction of the informant (P.W.7), inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and then the informant (P.W.7) took charge of the enquiry. During the course of enquiry, he

¶16

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 2 of 14

¶17

received the Post-Mortem Report, wherein the doctor (P.W.5) noticed the followings –

¶18

(i) One old scar at right to midline anteriorly size ½” x ¼” in neck;

¶19

(ii) One lacerated wound of 3” x 1.5” x .5” on lateral leg below knee which is post-mortem in nature;

¶20

(iii) Bruise on either side of middle of neck, anteriorly 3” x 3” which is ante-mortem in nature;

¶21

(iv) On dissection, I noticed larynx intact and its mucus membrane show haemorrhagic infiltration, cricoid cartilage and upper three tracheal ring fracture and congested and blood fell inside it, which is antemortem in nature;

¶22

Basing on the above finding, the cause of death has been opined by the doctor (P.W.5) to be asphyxia due to throttling.

¶23

Accordingly, the informant (P.W.7) lodged F.I.R. against the appellant accusing him to have committed murder of the deceased. On the basis of the F.I.R., Pandapada P.S. Case No.40 dated 25.06.2006 was registered under Section 302/201 of the IPC and the I.O. (P.W.7) himself took up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation,

¶24

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 3 of 14

¶25

he visited the spot, examined witnesses, arrested the appellant on 26.06.2006, seized his wearing apparels under Seizure List - Ext.6, collected the blood samples and nail-clippings and forwarded the appellant to court. The nail-clippings and blood samples, etc. were seized under Seizure List – Ext.7 and, on his transfer, the charge of investigation was handed over to one Somanath Jena, Sub-Inspector of Police, who sent the Exhibits to the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through Court and received the Chemical Examination Report under Ext.9 and, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/201, IPC against the appellant. After submission of charge-sheet, the case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure, where the learned trial court framed charges against the appellant, who pleaded denial of the charges and claimed for trial.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and also exhibited 10 documents in total. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial of the charges.

¶27

Learned trial court, after assessing the evidence of the witnesses, came to hold that, from the evidence of P.W.2 as well as P.W.3, it appears that the appellant was in the company of the deceased in his house where the dead body of

¶28

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 4 of 14

¶29

the deceased was found, but the appellant did not offer any explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., which proves the guilt of the appellant. Learned trial court further held that the Doctor (P.W.5) noticed three injuries on the body of the deceased and opined the death to be asphyxia due to throttling. However, since none of the witnesses deposed that the appellant did anything to destroy the evidence, the learned trial court acquitted him of the charge under Section 201, I.P.C. However, it found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶30

Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that, since there is no direct evidence in the case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence, and in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes paramount significance, and the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased, and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 only speaks about the last seen, on the basis of such evidence, the learned trial court should not have held the appellant guilty of the charge, merely because the appellant has not offered any explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, and it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete unerringly to prove the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, she submits that it is a fit

¶31

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 5 of 14

¶32

case where the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. She further submitted that, the inquest report indicates that it was a case of suicidal poisoning, which goes contrary to the post-mortem findings, and therefore the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant.

¶33

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that, P.W.2 has specifically stated that the appellant took the deceased towards the village on the date of occurrence at about 12 noon and when he returned home from forest at about 3.30 PM, the dead body of the deceased was found. Similarly, P.W.3 has also stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in the room where she was staying with the appellant, and the appellant was present at the spot. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that, the doctor (P.W.5) has noticed injuries on the person of the deceased and specifically opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling, and when the appellant was with the company of the deceased and when the occurrence took place inside the room where both of them were staying together and it was a case of homicidal death, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was required on the part of the appellant to offer explanation as to how the deceased died. He having failed to establish the same, the learned trial court has rightly applied such provision and

¶34

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 6 of 14

¶35

came to hold that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased, and accordingly convicted him under Section 302, IPC.

¶36

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is incumbent to deal with the testimonies of the relevant witnesses for better appreciation of the case.

¶37

P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. The deceased was married to the appellant about three years ago and had two sons. The appellant was unemployed, took intoxicants, and often quarrelled with and assaulted her. On the morning of the incident, P.W.1 and the accused’s mother (Srimati) went to collect forest leaves. Srimati told him there had been a quarrel the previous night. On returning around 3 p.m., he found his daughter dead. Though the appellant was present, he did not say anything. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 confirmed that the marriage between the appellant and his daughter was by mutual consent and by their own accord. He never visited their house. The villagers told him that the deceased took poison, but he doesn’t know the real cause of death.

¶38

P.W.2 is a neighbour of the appellant. She accompanied the deceased to the forest on the morning of the incident. Around noon, the appellant arrived, quarrelled with the deceased, and took her back to the village. When P.W.2

¶39

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 7 of 14

¶40

returned at 3:30 p.m., the deceased was already dead. She saw the appellant at 4 p.m., but he said nothing. In her crossexamination, she states that the appellant’s family lived together and appeared happy. She doesn’t know the cause of death.

¶41

P.W.3 is the sister of the appellant. His house is adjacent to the appellant’s. The appellant and the deceased usually stayed in one room and the mother and sister in another. She saw the deceased’s body around 12 noon in the room shared by the couple. The appellant was present but did not speak to her. In her cross-examination, she mentions that the appellant was in habit of taking Ganja. Their family looked happy. He brought a jeep to take the deceased to the hospital.

¶42

P.W.4 is a neighbour of the appellant. He saw the deceased going to the forest in the morning but did not see the appellant and learned of her death around 3 p.m. In his Crossexamination, he stated that he has no direct knowledge of the case and did not see the dead body.

¶43

Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties, there is no dispute that the inquest over the dead body of the deceased has been conducted by P.W.6, who was ASI of Police attached to Pandapada P.S., vide Pandapada P.S. U.D. Case No.6/06

¶44

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 8 of 14

¶45

dated 18.05.2006. On perusal of the Inquest Report under Ext.3, we find that, in Column No.9, the opinion of the witnesses as to the cause of death of the deceased has been mentioned, wherein it is stated that the exact cause of death is not known, and number of witnesses have signed below it. However, in Column No.10, where the opinion of the police officer as to the cause of death is required to be mentioned, it is recorded that the cause of death of the deceased was due to suicidal poisoning. However, final opinion has to be obtained from the post-mortem report. There is nothing on record as to who reported to the ASI of Police at the time of the inquest that the cause of death of the deceased was due to suicidal poisoning. Therefore, we cannot give much importance on this opinion, which is mentioned in Column No.10, more particularly when the doctor (P.W.5), who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 19.05.2006 in the District Headquarters Hospital, noticed a number of injuries on the person of the deceased, including fracture of the cricoid cartilage and upper three tracheal rings which is ante-mortem in nature, and opined that the cause of death is asphyxia due to throttling. The doctor has specifically stated in his cross-examination that throttling means by pressing by hand, and in this case the strangulation was from front side, and he denied to the suggestion given by the learned defence

¶46

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 9 of 14

¶47

counsel that his finding is erroneous; rather he confirmed that the death of the deceased was due to throttling. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of the doctor (P.W.5), we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased died of asphyxia due to throttling.

¶48

Now coming to the evidence of the other witnesses, we find that P.W.2 – Padmini Maharana has stated that, on the date of occurrence she along with the deceased had been to forest to collect Kendu leaves in the morning hours, as she is the neighbour of the appellant. She further deposed that, at about 12 noon the accused-appellant came to the forest and quarrelled with the deceased and took her to the village. She further stated that when she returned from forest at about 3.30 p.m., by that time the deceased was dead and she saw the appellant at about 4.00 p.m. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the last seen evidence, which has been adduced by this witness. Though suggestion has been given to P.W.2 that the deceased died due to poisoning, but she denied to such suggestion. P.W.3 has stated that the appellant and the deceased usually stay in one room and the mother and sister of the appellant usually stay in another room and when he saw the dead body of the deceased in the room, at that point of time the appellant was also present at the spot.

¶49

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 10 of 14

¶50

P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased and assault her and she had been to forest to collect Kendu leaves, and when she returned from the forest at about 3.00 pm, by that time the deceased was dead and the appellant was present in the house. Therefore, from the evidence of these three witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, it appears that the appellant brought the deceased to the village from the forest at about 12 noon and he was present in the house where the dead body of the deceased was found at about 3.30 p.m., and it is a case of homicidal death. The appellant reported the matter in the Police Station, but during the enquiry in U.D. Case, it was found that it is a case of homicidal death and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged. As rightly held by the learned trial court that, in the 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant has not offered any explanation as to how the deceased died a homicidal death when he was in her company.

¶51

Section 106 of the Evidence Act deals with burden of proving the fact especially within the knowledge, and this Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts unless the accused by use of

¶52

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 11 of 14

¶53

his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. If the explanation offered by the accused shows reasonable doubt on the prosecution story, he would be entitled to an acquittal. Thus, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to lead evidence to substantiate its accusation, and if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, it is a factor against the accused.

¶54

When the crime was committed inside a house, the initial burden is, no doubt, on the prosecution to establish its case, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as required in the case of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be comparatively lighter character, and in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premises that burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all of an accused to offer an explanation. In the case at hand, since the dead body of the deceased was found in the room where the appellant and the deceased were staying together and it is a

¶55

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 12 of 14

¶56

case of homicidal death, the appellant was last seen with the deceased prior to the occurrence and also after the occurrence and no explanation has been offered in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., we are of the view that, in view of the circumstantial evidence appearing on record, it can be said that the chain of circumstance is complete and there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime of murder was committed by the present appellant and therefore the learned trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC.

¶57

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2007 against the appellant Lochan Maharana under Section 302 IPC and the sentences passed thereunder stands confirmed. The Jail Criminal Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶58

As it appears from record, the appellant was directed to be released on bail vide order of this Court dated 18.12.2018. Hence, the appellant is directed to surrender forthwith before the learned trial court, failing which the learned trial court shall take immediate steps for his arrest and remanding him to jail custody to serve the sentence.

¶59

Before parting with the case, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned

¶60

JCRLA No. 1 of 2008 Page 13 of 14

¶61

counsel, who has been engaged as Amicus Curiae for the appellant Lochan Maharana in rendering her valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. She shall be paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) from the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided by Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶62