PRADIP MOHANTY, J & B.P.RAY, J. JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.19 OF 2001 ( Decided on 18 .03. 2010.) DHADIA @ RAMESH CHANDRA SAHOO ……….. Appellant -V- STATE OF ORISSA ………………… Respondent (A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) -SEC.154 (A) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT NO.1 OF 1872) – SEC.3. For Appellant – Sangram Das. For Respondent – Mr.J.P.Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate. [[ PRADIP MOHANTY, J. This jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No.52-A of 1997/73 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the evening of 13.12.1996 when the victim was returning home, the accused-appellant came running with a tangia and dealt a blow to his neck. When the deceased fell down, it is alleged that the accused dealt successive tangia blows on his head and other parts of the body. Due to such assault the deceased died. The informant with others caught hold of the accused and tied him. The incident was reported to the police consequent upon which the police registered thecase, proceeded with the investigation and after its completion submitted final form against the accused-appellant. 3. The plea of the appellant is complete denial of the allegation. 4. To substantiate the charge under sections 302/323, IPC, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses including the doctor and the investigating officer, and exhibited fourteen documents. The defence has examined none. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul on conclusion of the trial by his judgment dated 27.01.2001 convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5, the ocular witnesses, P.W.13, the doctor, and the post occurrence witnesses. He, however, acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 323, IPC.. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the judgment on the following grounds: (i) Both the ocular witnesses (P.Ws.3 and 5) are interested witnesses being related to the deceased. (ii) The delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution. (iii) There are major contradictions with regard to the spot of occurrence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also in course of submission drew attention of the Court to the relevant portion of the evidence on which he placed reliance. 7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is very clear and cogent and it finds corroboration from the post occurrence witnesses. Human blood was detected in the cloth of the accused as well as in the weapon of offence (axe). The accused was apprehended by the villagers including the witnesses immediately after the occurrence and the axe was snatched by them from his hand. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court warranting interference by this Court. 8. Perused the records. P.W.3 is the informant and cousin of the deceased. He deposed that on the date of occurrence he was bringing paddy bundles from his field and keeping them in his threshing floor. He found the accused-appellant going behind Lachhaman Pradhan (P.W.5) holding an axe. One Bisoi Behera was behind the appellant. He shouted and told Lachhaman Pradhan to go away as the accused- appellant was a wicked man and following him. At that time deceased Palau after tending his bullocks was returning home. He saw that the accused-appellant killed the deceased by means of the axe. First the accused gave one stroke by means of the axe to the head of the deceased. Thereafter, he dealt successive blows by means of the said axe to the neck and other parts of the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. He also deposed that both Lachhaman Pradhan (P.W.5) and Bisoi Behere were near the deceased at the time of incident. He, Lachhaman Pradhan and Bisoi Behera caught hold of the accused and snatched away the axe which was stained with blood. In that night, they detained the accused-appellant with the assistance of their villagers. Since the police station is at a distance of 20 to 25 kms away from the spot, the following morning he along with the son of the deceased went to the police station and lodged FIR. Ext.2 is the FIR and Ext.2/1 is his signature thereon. He is a witness to the inquest. Ext.1 is the inquest report and Ext.1/3 is his signature thereon. In cross-examination, he stated that from a distance of 100 cubits he saw that the accused was going behind the deceased with an axe in his right hand. The deceased was at a distance of 10 to 20 cubits behind Lachhaman Pradhan. From a distance of 20 to 30 cubits he saw the accused inflicting blows on the deceased. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. P.W.5 Lachhaman Pradhan is a co-villager. He deposed that he met the deceased near the stream while returning to his village from the bamboo company where he works. At that time, one Bisoi Behera raised hullah that accused was going with an axe and warned them to run away otherwise he would commit murder. Hearing hullah of Bisoi Behera, he looked back and found that the accused was coming with an axe and Bisoi was behind the accused. Seeing the accused, out of fear they tried to go inside the house of Sadasiba Jani (P.W.3). He went to a little distance towards the house of P.W.3. The deceased remained in the village Danda in front of the house of P.W.3. He specifically deposed that the accused dealt an axe blow to the neck of the deceased. The deceased fell down on the ground by keeping his face downward. Immediately, the accused dealt another axe blow to the head of the deceased. Thereafter, he gave successive blows to different parts of the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. P.W.3 immediately caught hold of the accused and snatched away the axe from him. He also assisted Sadasiba Jani (P.W.3) in catching hold of the accused. They raised hullah and other villagers gathered at the spot. The blood stained axe was lying at the spot. The following morning, FIR was lodged and inquest was conducted. In cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased Palau Padhan was his ‘Bhanaja ’ in village courtesy. P.W.3, Sadasiba Jani is his grand son in village courtesy. He also stated that there is no house in between the bamboo company camp and the house of Sadasiba Jani (P.W.3). He saw the deceased at a distance of 20 feet from him on the way while he was bringing rice from the bamboo company. He has also admitted that except Bisoi Behera and the deceased he did not find anybody else while Bisoi Behera was raising hullah. He also deposed that Sadasiba Jani (P.W.3) had fenced his house boundary in the Danda side and had not stacked straw or paddy hives in front of his house. He also specifically stated that the accused dealt four successive blows on the person of the deceased. There is no material to demolish the testimony of this witness. In cross-examination, he stated that P.W.3 came to the spot after the accused had given three successive blows to the deceased. The FIR story also corroborates the evidence of P.W.3. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are co-villagers and post occurrence witnesses. P.W.1 deposed that he heard hullah from the village side that the deceased had been killed. Immediately, he rushed to the spot and found two cut injuries on the neck of the deceased. He also found the accused being confined by the villagers near the spot. Villagers stated that the accused had killed the deceased. During the whole night, villagers guarded the accused. On the next day, FIR was lodged. He is a witness to the inquest and put his signature in the inquest report. In cross-examination, he stated that he is not related to the deceased. He enquired about the occurrence from a co-villager, namely, Naba (P.W.2). It is elicited by the defence from this witness that the axe was lying near the dead body of the deceased. Further, the police station was at a distance of 23 Kms away from the spot and so they could not send any villager to the police station, as it was forest area. P.W.2 stated that he was a witness to the inquest and he put his signature in the inquest report marked Ext.1/2. He supported the evidence of P.W.1. In cross-examination he stated that P.W.1 came to the spot at the time when he was present and he narrated the incident to P.W.1. P.W.4 also supported the evidence of P.W.1. He proved the inquest report (Ext.1), and the seizure lists (Exts.3, 4 and 5) with regard to the seizure of M.O.I, blood stained earth and the wearing apparels of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. P.W.6 is another co- villager and a post occurrence witness. He is also a witness to the seizure of M.O.I vide seizure list (Ext.3), blood stained earth vide seizure list (Ext.4), blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased vide seizure list (Ext.5), and blood stained wearing apparels of the accused vide seizure list (Ext.6). Nothing has been elicited by the defence to demolish the evidence of this witness. P.W.7 is yet another co-villager and he also supported the evidence of P.W.6. He deposed that after hearing about the incident, he proceeded to the spot and found the deceased lying dead. The accused was tied by the villagers at the spot. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination. To the same effect is also the evidence of P.Ws.9, 10 and 11. P.Ws.8 and 12 have turned hostile. P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and found the following injuries: “i) Rigour motice present in all fore limbs. Incised wound nape of the neck 10 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm. cutting muscle vertebra and smpnal cord completely at the level of C 7-T one, ii) Incised wound left scapular region above the spinus process of scapula 8 cm x 3 cm cutting mussels and scapula. iii) Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm left side of neck 2 cm below ear extending to mid line posteriorly cutting muscles, vessels and vertebral artel at C-2 level. iv) Incised wound 10 cm x ½ cm x 4 cm left side of scalp over parietal region cutting scalp, skull, membrance and brain matter. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature and all injuries are caused by sharp cutting weapon.” He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The injuries were possible by the axe (M.O.I). Cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries. In cross- examination he specifically admitted that injury no.2 was sufficient to cause death. Injury no.3 was grievous in nature and it cannot be possible by fall on a hard surface. Injury no.4 was also not possible by fall. P.W.14 is the Medical Officer who had examined one Sesadev Sahu on 20.12.1996. But prosecution has not examined said Sesadev Sahu as a witness. P.W.15 is the Circle Inspector of Police, Angul, who took charge of the investigation from B.N. Das, A.S.I. of police, Purunakote Police Station, examined the witnesses, dispatched the exhibits to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh for chemical examination and sent the seized weapon of offence, i.e., Tangia tothe Medical Officer (P.W.13) for examination. He sent requisition to the Tahasildar, Angul to direct the R.I., Purunakote to prepare a spot map. He also sent requisition to Range Officer, Purunakote forest range to prepare a spot map, as the spot belonged to forest area. He proved Ext.12, the spot map, Ext.13, the chemical examination report, and Ext.14, the serologist repot. 9. On perusal of the evidence, it reveals that P.W.3 is related to the deceased. But, P.W.5 is a co-villager and an independent eye witness who supported the evidence of P.W.3. P.Ws.3 and 5 have specifically stated about the assault given by the appellant to the deceased. There is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is corroborated by the post-occurrence witnesses and the circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, the post-occurrence witnesses, deposed that after hearing hullah they went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased lying and the accused was kept tied on the spot. The medical evidence also supported the version of P.Ws.3 and 5. In fact the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of the occurrence and the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear to the effect that the police station is at a distance of 20 Kms away from the spot and that the area was forest area. P.W.2 also supported the version of P.W.1. He specifically stated that their village is situated in the forest area and there is no good communication to go to the police station. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution. The chemical examination report and serologist report marked Exts.13 and 14 respectively reveal that human blood was noticed on the cloth of the accused and no explanation has been given by him as to how human blood came to his cloth. The presence of human blood on the cloth of the accused-appellant is a strong piece of evidence. For all these reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 10. In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is upheld and the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Appeal dismissed.