Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2001
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Bench: Hon’ble L. Mohapatra J., Hon’ble C.R. Dash J. ASH
Date of judgment: 09.03.2011
Relevant Acts/Sections:
- Section 341 of IPC (Punishment for wrongful restraint)
- Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for murder)
- Section 342 of IPC (Punishment for wrongful confinement)
- Section 323 of IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)
- Section 326 of IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
- Section 307 of IPC (Attempt to murder.)
- Section 354 of IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.)
- Section 34 of IPC (Acts done by several persons in furtherance)
- Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for murder)
- Section 324 of IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
- Section 352 of IPC (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation)
Backstory
In this case, the occurrence happened in between 11 a.m. to 12 noon on 09.1.1994 at village Balikuda under Satyabadi P.S. in the district of Puri. Deceased Chhaila Pradhan at that time was sitting on the verandah in front of his house. SukantaBaral, Akshaya Baral, and DebarajBaral (present appellants) along with Sagar Baral and BudhinathBaral came in front of the house of the deceased Chhaila Pradhan and started abusing him in filthy language. The deceased protested to such action of the appellant and others. All of a sudden, appellant SukantaBaral and Akshaya Baral caught hold of the deceased, and at that time appellant DebarajBaral dealt a ‘farsha’ blow on the head of the deceased and the deceased fell unconscious at the spot. Laxmidhar Pradhan, who happens to be the son of deceased Chhaila Pradhan, started shouting seeing the assault on his father. When the other witnesses came, the accused persons decamped from the spot, and while so decamping appellant SukantaBaral threw a ‘Katari’ aiming at Laxmidhar Pradhan, for which he sustained injuries on his right leg. Based on the report lodged by Laxmidhar Pradhan, a case for the offense punishable under Sections 341/342/323/326/307/354/34, I.P.C. was registered by the S.I. of Police, Satyabadi P.S. In course of treatment at the hospital, deceased Chhaila Pradhan succumbed to the injuries. On completion of the investigation, the O.I.C., Satbayadi P.S, who took up the charge of the investigation at a subsequent stage, filed a charge-sheet.
The trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, found the aforesaid three appellants guilty. The deceased in his dying declaration has stated that accused Akshaya Baral and SukantaBaral caught hold of him and dragged and accused DebarajBaral dealt a ‘farsha’ blow on his head.
Postmortem Findings
On examining it reveled that the deceased Chhaila Pradhan during his treatment on police requisition, shows that the deceased had sustained the following injuries
(i) Incised wound 5″ x ½” x 1/4″ extending over the right front parietal region.
(ii) Contusion 5½” x 3″ surrounding the injury No. (i).
He further opined that injury no.(i) has been caused by the sharp- cutting weapon.
the Medical Officer, who conducted a post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, has testified that the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries on the skull bone affecting the brain tissues. It was clear that there has been assault by a sharp cutting weapon and only one blow has been given by the assailant. There was no injury on any other part of the body of the deceased.
Judgment
Appellants Sukanta Kishore Baral and Akshaya Baral under Section 302/34, I.P.C. was modified to one under Section 352/34, I.P.C. Both of them have already undergone imprisonment for more than the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense they were held guilty of, be discharged of the bail bonds furnished in the present case.
Conviction of the appellant DebarajBaral was modified to one under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
The Criminal Appeal was accordingly allowed in part and the Jail Crl. The appeal was also accordingly allowed in part.