State Of Orissa vs Gouranga Mahanta And Another

The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 6th May, 2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No. 127-D of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No. 106 of 2000 whereby the Respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Respondents stood charged with having committed the murder of Balaram Naik on 4th February, 2000 at village Saraberani within the local limits of Kamakhyanagar Police Station in the District of Dhenkanal.

13 witnesses were examined for the prosecution whereas the accused was examined one witness. The key witness for the prosecution was P.W.4, who supposed to have witnessed the incident. P.W.7 was the wife of the deceased, who is supposed to have deposed about the rivalry between the deceased and the accused.

P.W.7 stated that the deceased had taken the cycle of one Narottam Jena (P.W.5) on Friday, but did not return home. Subsequently, the matter was reported by her at Kankadahad Police outpost. 19 days thereafter, on being informed that the dead body is floating in the village well, she went there and identified the body of her husband. On a crucial aspect about the previous quarrel between the accused and her husband, it transpired during her cross-examination that she had made no such statement at the first instance to the police during the investigation. This omission was, therefore, viewed by the trial Court as rendering her evidence untrustworthy.

As regards P.W. 4, he was supposed to have seen the accused Gurubaria give stone blows on the deceased and while the deceased fell to the ground shouting, the other accused Gouranga and he are supposed to have thrown the body in the local well.

The trial Court noticed certain peculiar features in the version of P.W.4. He was examined by the Investigation Officer (I.O.) (P.W.13) only on 12th May, 2000 nearly three months after the incident. P.W. 4 himself claimed that, on the next day after the occurrence, he went to the house of his co-Son-in-law where he remained for 6 days. 18 days thereafter, the body of the deceased was found floating in the well. During this entire period, P.W. 4 mentioned to no one that he had witnessed the murder of the deceased by the accused with stones. P.W. 4 did not report the matter to any of the co-relatives or to the police either. His evidence showed that he in fact accompanied the other villagers in searching for the deceased. This was inconsistent with his version of having witnessed the murder of the accused.

Having again examined the evidence of both P.Ws. 4 and 7 with the help of counsel, the Court is of the view that P.W. 4 is a wholly unreliable witness and it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the Respondents on such evidence. P.W. 7 also could not be held to be a reliable witness since she failed to mention to the police ion the first instance the crucial fact regarding the rivalry between the accused and deceased. In view of such other evidence, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the Respondents.

The Court is unable to find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..