Bharat Sahoo Vs State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

JCRLA No.76 of 2006

An appeal from judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.112 of 2004.

¶4

¶5

Bharat Sahoo ....... Appellant -VersusState of Odisha ....... Respondent For Appellant - Mr. Amitav Tripathy Advocate (OHCLSC) For Respondent - Mr. Sarat Pradhan Addl. Standing Counsel ----------------------

¶6

P R E S E N T:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing and Judgment: 10.03.2025

¶11

¶12

By the Bench: The appellant Bharat Sahoo faced trial in the Court of

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Mar-2025 15:35:49

¶15

learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.112 of 2004 for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

¶16

(hereinafter the ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 13.06.2004 at

¶17

Page 1 of 23

¶18

JCRLA No.76 of 2006

¶19

about 9.00 a.m. near Sitapur pond, he committed murder of Chuman Sahu (hereinafter ‘the deceased’).

¶20

The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2006, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.

¶21

Prosecution Case :

¶22

The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter the ‘F.I.R.’) lodged by Rameswar Sahoo (P.W.1), the brother of the deceased before the officer-in-charge of Lanjigarh police station on 13.06.2004, in short, is that on that day in the early morning, he along with the deceased had been to Sitapur pond to catch fish. The deceased had given a sum of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to his brother-in-law Satrughna Sahu three years prior to the date of occurrence on the eve of latter’s daughter’s marriage. Three days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased asked Satrughna Sahu to refund the amount and the latter told him to come to his house to receive the amount. When the deceased went to the house of Satrughna Sahu, he was assaulted with a tangia and the tangia blow hit on the hand of the deceased. The sister of the deceased

¶23

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 2 of 23

¶24

intervened and the deceased came back. On the date of occurrence i.e. 13.06.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., a quarrel ensued between the deceased and Hatiram, who is one of the brothers of Satrughna Sahu relating to the repayment of Rs.5,000/(rupees five thousand), which the deceased had given to Satrughna Sahu. At that time, the appellant came in a bicycle with a tangia, called the deceased and assaulted him with the tangia and dealt four to five blows on the neck, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. The informant (P.W.1) called his other brothers and thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶25

P.W.9 Dhiraj Kumar Chopdar, the Officer-in-charge of Lanjigarh police station on receipt of the F.I.R. of P.W.1 from Biswanathpur outpost, where it was lodged first, registered Lanjigarh P.S. Case No.20 dated 13.06.2004 under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and he himself took up the investigation of the case.

¶26

During course of investigation, P.W.9 examined the informant, other witnesses, visited the spot at village Sitapur, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, prepared the inquest report (Ext.5), sent the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer, Lanjigarh Govt. Hospital through constable for post mortem examination. P.W.9 also seized one green colour

¶27

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 3 of 23

¶28

Hercules cycle, a pair of hawai chapals, one black check shirt lying on the embankment of the pond as per seizure list Ext.8. He also seized blood stained earth, sample earth and Amari leaves stained with blood lying near the dead body of the deceased as per seizure list Ext.9. On the date of occurrence, P.W.9 arrested the appellant and on production of the appellant, a tangia (M.O.I) was seized under seizure list Ext.1. The appellant was sent for medical examination, the wearing apparels of the deceased were seized on being produced by the escorting constables under seizure list Ext.10 and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to R.F.S.L., Berhampur on 16.07.2004 through the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna and the chemical examination report vide Ext.13 was received. P.W.9 also made a query to the doctor (P.W.8), who conducted post mortem examination regarding possibility of injuries found on the deceased with the seized tangia and the query report was submitted by P.W.8 and on completion of investigation, P.W.9 submitted charge sheet under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.

¶29

Framing of Charges :

¶30

After submission of the charge sheet, complying with the due committal procedure, the case was committed to the

¶31

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 4 of 23

¶32

Court of Session, where the learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant as aforesaid. As the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to establish his guilt.

¶33

Prosecution Witnesses & Exhibits :

¶34

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.

¶35

P.W.1 Rameswar Sahoo is the brother of the

¶36

deceased and the informant in this case. He narrated the incident as it unfolded and supported the prosecution case.

¶37

P.W.2 Jema Sahoo stated that on the date of occurrence, she along with her mother had been to Sitapur Tank for bathing and at about 9.00 or 9.30 a.m., she noticed the deceased and Hatiram were quarreling and at that time, the appellant came on a cycle, parked it on the embankment, put off his shirt and chappal and approached the deceased with a tangia and assaulted him on his neck. She further stated that when the deceased fell down, the appellant gave four to five blows with the tangia and fled away carrying the said taniga with him and the deceased died on the spot. She further stated that at that time, Debarchan Rana (P.W.3), Bikram Sahu, Rameswar Sahoo

¶38

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 5 of 23

¶39

(P.W.1) and one Chaitan of Sitapur village were present near the tank.

¶40

P.W.3 Debarchan Rana stated that on the date of

¶41

occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., he was catching fish in Sitapur Tank and at that time, the deceased and Hatiram Sahu quarreled noisily over payment of money. He further stated that the appellant came there riding a cycle, parked the cycle on the embankment of the tank, put off his shirt and called the deceased to come. He further stated that at that time, the deceased was separating Amari plants in the tank to catch fish. The appellant came to the deceased and dealt a blow by means of a tangia on his neck, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and thereafter the appellant dealt three to four more blows on the deceased and ran towards his house carrying the tangia. He further stated that at that time Bikram Sahu, P.W.1 and one Chaitan were present in the tank.

¶42

P.W.4 Chaitanya Behera stated that on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., he was catching fish in Dhanrabhata Tank and the deceased and Hati Sahu were quarreling regarding payment of dues. He further stated that the appellant in the meantime came there and assaulted on the neck of the deceased by a tangia, as a result of which, he fell down.

¶43

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 6 of 23

¶44

He further stated that thereafter the appellant dealt three to four more blows by that tangia and fled away from the spot carrying the same and the deceased died on the spot.

¶45

P.W.5 Karuna Sahoo stated that he had seen the appellant entering into the Biswanathpur outpost carrying a tangia and sometimes after, the police called him and took his signature on a piece of paper in token of his witnessing the appellant entering into the outpost. He proved Ext.1 and tangia (M.O.I).

¶46

P.W.6 Ananda Narayan Das stated that he had been to Sitapur Dam as he heard that somebody was murdered there and saw that the dead body was lying beside the water. He further stated that police came and took his signature on a paper showing him a shirt, a pair of chappals and one cycle which he had seen kept on the embankment of the tank.

¶47

P.W.7 Subudhi Bag was the constable attached to Biswanathpur outpost under Lanjigarh police station. He stated that on 13.06.2004 at about 8.00 to 9.00 a.m., he was on sentry duty at Biswanathpur outpost. He stated that the appellant came to the outpost carrying a tangia and told him and one Gram Rakhi that he committed the murder of the deceased by tangia.

¶48

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 7 of 23

¶49

He further stated that he took away the tangia (M.O.I) from the hands of the appellant and sent information to the Officer-incharge of Lanjigarh police station over V.H.F. message, who came and seized that tangia from him. He is also a witness to the seizure vide Ext.1.

¶50

P.W.8 Dr. Jyotibash Sahoo was the Medical Officer attached to Lanjigarh Govt. Hospital who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and proved his report vide Ext.2. He opined that the injuries on the head of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the injuries were caused by hard, heavy sharp edged weapon. He further opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage.

¶51

P.W.9 Dhiraj Kumar Chopdar was working as the O.I.C. of Lanjigarh Police Station and he is the investigating officer of this case.

¶52

The prosecution exhibited 14 documents. Ext.1 is the seizure list in respect of one tangia, Ext.2 is the post mortem examination report, Ext.3 is the query of P.W.9 on weapon of offence, Ext.4 is the written report (F.I.R.), Ext.5 is the inquest report, Ext.6 is the dead body challan, Ext.7 is the command

¶53

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 8 of 23

¶54

certificate, Ext.8 is the seizure list in respect of cycle, check full shirt and chappals of the appellant, Ext.9 is the seizure list of Amari leaves, sample earth and blood stained earth, Ext.10 is the seizure list in respect of wearing apparels of the deceased after post mortem examination, Ext.11 is the seizure list in respect of nail clippings of the appellant, Ext.12 is the office copy of forwarding letter of seized articles sent for chemical examination, Ext.13 is the chemical examination report and Ext.14 is the spot map.

¶55

The prosecution proved five material objects. M.O.I is tangia, M.O.II is shirt, M.O.III is cheque lungi, M.O.IV is blue banian and M.O.V is the red towel.

¶56

Defence Plea :

¶57

The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and he specifically pleaded that his political opponents falsely entangled him in the case and he also denied to have produced any tangia before police.

¶58

Findings of the trial Court:

¶59

The learned trial Court, after assessing the oral as well as the documentary evidence, came to hold on the basis of evidence adduced by P.W.8 and the post mortem examination

¶60

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 9 of 23

¶61

report (Ext.2) that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The learned trial Court accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 4 so also the evidence relating to production of tangia (M.O.I) as deposed to by P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.9 and came to hold that the appellant dealt several blows by tangia (M.O.I) to the deceased. The learned trial Court also took into account the chemical examination report (Ext.13) finding that the tangia (M.O.I) was having human blood of Group-A which was the blood group of the deceased and it was further held that the appellant had no other intention except the intention of causing the murder of the deceased and accordingly, found the appellant guilty under section 302 of the I.P.C.

¶62

Contention of the Parties:

¶63

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, though has not disputed that the deceased died a homicidal death, but argued that there was some quarrel at the time of occurrence between the deceased and Hati Sahu, the brother of Satrughna Sahu relating to the non-refund of an amount of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) which was given by the deceased to Satrughna Sahu and during such quarrel, the appellant seems to have been provoked and on grave and sudden provocation, he assaulted the deceased and therefore,

¶64

Page 10 of 23

¶65

JCRLA No.76 of 2006

¶66

the case would not come within the purview of section 302 of the I.P.C. and it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶67

Mr. Sarat Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel,

¶68

on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the evidence of the four eye witnesses are very clear and nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to dislodge their version and the version of the eye witnesses gets corroboration from the medical evidence adduced by P.W.8, who noticed a number of chop wounds on the vital part of the body of the deceased. Moreover, the evidence on record is very clear that it was the appellant, who produced the tangia in the police station which was seized by the I.O. and that tangia was also sent for chemical examination and human blood of Group-A was noticed on it and therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the appellant. Learned counsel further argued that since the quarrel was between the deceased and Hati Sahu and the appellant was nowhere in the picture and he suddenly came to the spot with a tangia and mercilessly assaulted the deceased, there was no question of grave and sudden provocation of the appellant in the

¶69

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 11 of 23

¶70

factual scenario and therefore, his conviction cannot be altered to either under section 304 Part I and Part II of the I.P.C.

¶71

Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death? :

¶72

Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, let us find out how far the prosecution has established that the deceased met with a homicidal death.

¶73

Apart from the inquest report (Ext.5), the evidence of P.W.8, the Medical Officer of Langigarh Govt. Hospital who conducted post mortem examination on 13.06.2004 is very relevant in this regard. He noticed the following external injuries:

¶74

i) Chop wound of size 2” x 1” x 1/2” present obliquely on the right side of occipital region:

¶75

ii) Chop wound of size 2” x 1/2” x 1/2” Parallel and below injury No.(1);

¶76

iii) Chop wound of size 1” and 1/2” x 1/2” x 1/4" present obliquely, on the back side of neck towards right;

¶77

iv) Chop wound size 2” x 1/2" x 1/4" present on the left side of occipital region opposite to injury No.(1);

¶78

v) Chop wound of size 1 and ½” X ½” X ¼” on the outer boarder of right scapula;

¶79

Page 12 of 23

¶80

JCRLA No.76 of 2006

¶81

v) Chop wound of size 2” x 1/2" x 1/4" present on the outer aspect of right upper arm present obliquely.

¶82

On dissection, he opined that the injuries on the head were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the injuries on the head were fatal and the injuries were caused by hard, heavy sharp edged weapon. He further opined the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage inside brain and shock.

¶83

The Investigating Officer (P.W.9) sent the tangia (M.O.I) to P.W.8, which was seized from the appellant, who examined the same and opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible by tangia and the query report has been proved as Ext.3. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to dislodge the version of P.W.8.

¶84

In view of the available materials on record, particularly the inquest report (Ext.5), the evidence of P.W.8 and the post mortem examination report (Ext.2), we are of the humble view that the learned trial Court is quite justified in holding that the deceased met with a homicidal death.

¶85

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 13 of 23

¶86

Whether the versions of the eye witnesses are reliable and trustworthy? :

¶87

Now adverting to the evidence of the four eye witnesses i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, it appears that P.W.1 is the informant in the case and he has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 09:00 a.m., while he along with the deceased and others had been to the tank in his village Sitapur to catch fish, at about 09:00 a.m., a quarrel ensued between the deceased and Hati Sahu as Hati Sahu took exception as to why the deceased was always demanding money, which he had advanced to Satrughan Sahu, the brother of Hati Sahu. He further stated that at that time, the appellant came there riding a bicycle, putting a tangia on his cycle, parked the cycle on the embankment of the tank and put off his shirt and rushed towards deceased carrying the tangia and dealt blows on his back and backside of the neck. P.W.1 specifically stated that he remained present on the other side of the water of the tank, which was about 100 (one hundred) feet, saw the incident and after the appellant ran away towards his house carrying the tangia, he rushed towards the deceased and found him dead. He further stated that he got a report scribed by one Biranchi Sahu and it was lodged at Biswanathpur Outpost. The first information report

¶88

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 14 of 23

¶89

also indicates that the Officer In-charge received the report from the outpost and thereafter, the F.I.R. was registered. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that Satrughan Sahu was not returning the money taken from the deceased for which both of them were quarrelling frequently whenever the deceased was demanding money. He further stated that there was exchange of words between the deceased and Hatiram on the embankment of the tank. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to dislodge the version of P.W.1. Thus the version of P.W.1 as an eye witness to the occurrence has remained unshaken.

¶90

P.W.2 has stated that while the deceased and

¶91

Hatiram were quarrelling, the appellant came in a bicycle carrying one tangia and assaulted on the neck of the deceased for which he fell down and then the appellant gave four to five blows with the tangia and fled away from the spot carrying tangia with him and the deceased died at the spot. P.W.2 has stated about the presence of P.W.1 at the spot. He has also identified the tangia as M.O.I by which the deceased was assaulted by the appellant. In the cross-examination, he stated that he saw the incident from a distance of about one hundred feet. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve P.W.2 also.

¶92

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 15 of 23

¶93

P.W.3 and P.W.4 have also stated about the assault

¶94

made by the appellant with a tangia on the deceased and thereafter, the appellant running towards his house carrying the tangia. The evidence of these two eye witnesses have also remained unchallenged.

¶95

The version of the eye witnesses as rightly submitted by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel is getting ample corroboration from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8), who conducted post mortem examination and noticed a number of chop wounds on the body of the deceased.

¶96

P.W.5 has stated about the appellant carrying the tangia entering into the outpost which was seized as per the seizure list Ext.1. The constable of Biswanathpur Outpost, who was examined as P.W.7 has also stated that the appellant came to the outpost with a tangia (M.O.I) and produced the same and about the preparation of seizure list Ext.1. This tangia was sent by the I.O. to the doctor for examination and opinion regarding possibility of the injuries noticed on the body of the deceased by such weapon and the answer was in affirmative.

¶97

The I.O. had also sent the tangia for chemical examination through the Court and chemical examination report has been marked as Ext.13 and it shows that the human blood of

¶98

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 16 of 23

¶99

Group-A was found on the tangia so also on the wearing apparels of the deceased i.e. one check lungi, one blue colour banian and one red colour red towel. Therefore, the production of the tangia by the appellant with blood stain of the deceased is another relevant feature in this case.

¶100

On the overall analysis of the evidence, we are of the view that the version of the four eye witnesses, who are the eyes and ears of justice is wholly consistent and it gets full corroboration from the medical evidence and the prosecution has successfully established that it was due to the repeated blows given by the appellant with tangia (M.O.I), the deceased died.

¶101

Whether the case comes within the purview of culpable

¶102

homicide not amounting to murder? :

¶103

Now, the contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation, the case would come within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is required to be discussed.

¶104

It appears that the appellant was nowhere in the picture when there was quarrel between the deceased and Hatiram Sahu in relation to the demanding of money by the deceased. The deceased had lent a sum of Rs.5,000/- (rupees

¶105

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 17 of 23

¶106

five thousand) to his brother-in-law Satrughana Sahoo, who was the brother of Hatiram Sahoo so also the appellant. The deceased was repeatedly asking Satrughana Sahoo to refund the amount, but the same was not done. On the date of occurrence, Hatiram Sahu quarrelled with the deceased over this issue, The appellant came all of a sudden and dealt repeated blows using the sharp edged side of the tangia on the vital parts of the body of the deceased.

¶107

Section 299 of I.P.C. which deals with ‘culpable homicide’ is divided into three parts. The first part refers to the ‘act by which the death is caused by being done with the intention of causing death’. That part corresponds to the first clause of Section 300 of I.P.C. The second part of Section 299 of I.P.C. speaks of the ‘intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death’. This has corresponding provisions in clauses ‘secondly’ and ‘thirdly’ of Section 300 of I.P.C. Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. covers cases which by reason of the Exceptions under Section 300 I.P.C. are taken out of the purview of clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 300 I.P.C., but otherwise would fall within it, and also cases which fall within the second part of Section 299 of I.P.C. but not within clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 of I.P.C. The third part of Section 299 of I.P.C. i.e.

¶108

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 18 of 23

¶109

‘with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death’ corresponds to "Fourthly" of Section 300 of I.P.C. Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. covers those cases which fall within the third part of Section 299 of I.P.C. but do not fall within the fourth clause of Section 300 of I.P.C.

¶110

Exception 1 to section 300 of I.P.C. says, inter alia, that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. This exception is no doubt subject to certain limitations, like the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. As per the explanation to the Exception 1, whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Grave and sudden provocation is a mixed question of law and facts. Exception 4 to section 300 of I.P.C. states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

¶111

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 19 of 23

¶112

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anbazhagan -Vrs.The State Represented by the Inspector of Police reported in MANU/SC/0782/2023 : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500 , further provide valuable guidance as follows -

¶113

"60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:- (1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused….

¶114

(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the I.P.C., the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the I.P.C., if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the I.P.C. It would be

¶115

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 20 of 23

¶116

offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the I.P.C. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the I.P.C., may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the I.P.C. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.

¶117

(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the I.P.C. it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'.”

¶118

Exception 1 to section 300 of I.P.C. is not applicable

¶119

in the case as the deceased had not given any provocation to the appellant at all. Similarly, Exception to 4 to section 300 of I.P.C.

¶120

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 21 of 23

¶121

is not applicable as there was neither sudden fight nor sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the manner in which the appellant had assaulted the deceased, even after the latter fell down on the ground after receiving the first blow on the head and since the appellant dealt repeated blows with sharp side of the tangia on the vital part of the body of the deceased, it shows that the appellant has acted in a cruel manner. Therefore, none of the exceptions to section 300 of I.P.C. is applicable in the case and thus, the question of the act of the appellant coming within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder does not arise.

¶122

Conclusion :

¶123

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the humble view that through the evidence of the eye witnesses and the evidence of the doctor and other evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has successfully established the charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

¶124

Accordingly, the JCRLA being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶125

JCRLA No.76 of 2006 Page 22 of 23

¶126

It appears that the appellant was granted bail by this Court on 11.08.2014 passed in Misc. Case No.57 of 2014. He shall surrender within two weeks from today, failing which the learned trial Court shall take appropriate steps for the arrest of the appellant for undergoing the sentence as awarded by the trial Court, which is confirmed by us.

¶127

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the concerned Court for information and compliance.

¶128

Before parting with the judgment, we put on record our appreciation to Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant for rendering his assistance in arriving at the above decision. We also appreciate Mr. Sarat Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for ably and meticulously presenting the case on behalf of the State.

¶129

…....…………………….

¶130

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶131

The 10^th March, 2025/ Sipun/Rajesh

¶132

Page 23 of 23

¶133

JCRLA No.76 of 2006

Bharat Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Kishan Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Talcher, Bimalagarh, Nbg Rail Link Project, Sundargarh.

Manoranjan Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Aswini Kumar Pattnayak Vs State of Odisha

Indu Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Nabaghana Jena Vs Siddharth Shankar Swain, I.A.S.

Aswini Kumar Pattnayak Vs State of Odisha