AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Papanna, JJ.—Impugned judgment of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in S. T. No. 3/128 of 1993 convicting the accused (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life is under challenge in this appeal preferred from Jail.
Prosecution case is that on 20/21.9.1992 at about 2 A. M. one Banshidhar Panda (informant) was sleeping in his house. Hearing hualla coming from the house of Pramila Panda (P.W.2), he woke up and rushed there. He found her father (deceased) lying on the ground with multiple injuries on his person. On query, she told him that as her father did not agree to transfer his land in favour of her husband, the latter inflicted injuries on the former by means of a stone (Silapua) and a knife. He fled away thereafter from the spot. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital. On the information 6f Banshidhar Panda (P.W. 1), Balipatna P. S. Case No. 77 of 1992 was registered. During investigation police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. It was sent for autopsy. On completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the appellant u/s 302, IPC.
The appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution.
Evidence of nine witnesses has been pressed into service to prove guilt of the appellant. P.W. 1 is the informant. P.W. 2 is wife of the appellant. P.W. 3 is his daughter. P.W. 4 is a seizure witness. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are inquest witnesses. P.W. 7 is the I.O. P.W. 8 is the O.I.C. of Balipatna Police Station and P.W. 9 is a Constable of the above Police Station.
Defence, on the other hand, declined to examine any witness.
On consideration of the evidence of witnesses on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of charge u/s 302 IPC. He was convicted of the said charge and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that evidence of inmates of house of the deceased without independent corroboration cannot be accepted. He urged that motive for commission of the crime has not been established. His further contention is that as the spot of occurrence was dark at the material time, there was no scope for P.Ws. 2 and 3 to see assault on the victim by the appellant. On these grounds, he persuaded us to allow the appeal.
The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the order of conviction and sentence impugned before us.
In view of contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are called upon to scan the evidence basing on which the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment.
The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, has not been examined in this case. However, on consent of the parties, Post-Mortem Report has been marked as Ext. 14. On perusal of Ext. 14, we found following external injuries on the victim :
(i) Incised wound 2" x 1" x" on left cheek.
(ii) Incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/4" on right cheek.
(iii) Incised wound 1 1/2" x1 1/4" x 1/2" on above left eye brow.
(iv) Deep incised wound 3" x 2" x 1" on the cheek exposing underlying bone.
(v) Fracture of lower jaw with dislocation of 6 to 7 teeth.
We also found some internal injuries on the victim as per Ext. 14 :
"Frontal area of scalp shows blood clot and linear if fracture 3" length found on the frontal area intending to parietal area. Subdural haematoma 1 1/2" x 1" found. Intre-Cerebral haemorrhage found in frontal and intending to parietal region. All internal injuries are pale. Stomach contains black colour blood about 200 ml. Time since death by the time of P.M. Examination was within 24 hours to 36 hours. Cause of death is due to intre-cerebral haemorrhage and fracture of jaw leading to haemorrhage and shock."
The learned trial Judge relied on Ext. 14 and came to hold that the above injuries found on the victim are ante-mortem in nature. He further held that deceased died homicidal death. It is true that the Doctor who conducted autopsy has not been examined. As such, the learned trial Judge has not committed any illegality in accepting Ext. 14 into evidence. We agree with his findings as above.
We scrutinised evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3, who are no. other than appellant''s wife and daughter, respectively. The learned trial Judge based conviction of the appellant on the testimony of these two witnesses. Evidence of P.W. 2 is clear, consistent, cogent and trustworthy. She has reiteratedly stated to have seen her husband assaulting on the face of her father by means of a stone (Silapua), He dealt blows on his cheek. Evidence of P.W. 3 lends support to her testimony. P.W. 3 Emphatically stated to have seen her father assaulting her grand father on different parts of his body by means of a stone (Silapua). Hearing their hualla P.W. 1 rushed to the spot and saw the occurrence. He supported versions of P.Ws. 2 and 3. On his FIR. (Ext. 1), the criminal law was set into motion. The learned trial has not committed any illegality in accepting evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 in holding the appellant guilty of the charge. They are truthful witnesses. Their evidence inspires our confidence in believing the prosecution case. Therefore, there is no need to look for independent corroboration of their testimony. We do not find any reason to disbelieve and discard their evidence. In the present case, motive for commission of the crime need not be proved. The law is well settled that when there is direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, it is needless to prove motive. Moreover, motive being a state of mind is known to the perpetrator of the crime alone. We do not also agree with contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no scope for P.Ws. 2 and 3 to see the assault on the deceased committed by the appellant as it was dark. In this regard, their evidence shows clearly and categorically that there was light burning at the time of occurrence.
Therefore, on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, we have found that the evidence account of eye witnesses is clear, consistent and convincing. When the said evidence is credible and trustworthy, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. In our considered view, the appellant has been properly convicted u/s 302, IPC by the learned trial Judge basing on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 corroborated by other evidence available on record.
In the result, for the reasons recorded above, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 302, IPC. The appeal does not merit any consideration. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.
B.P. Das, J.
I agree.