Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nOrissa High Court\nPriyanka Jha @ Devi vs State Of Orissa on 3 October, 2023           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n                           JCRLA No.49 of 2012\n\n          In the matter of an Appeal under Section 383 of the Code of\n    Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction\n    and the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the\n    learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial\n    No.49 of 2011.\n                                       ----\n         Priyanka Jha @ Devi                     ....        Appellant\n\n                                   -versus-\n\n         State of Orissa                         ....       Respondent\n\n              Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement\n                        (Virtual/Physical Mode):\n\n                For Appellant      -         Mrs.Sonita Biswal,\n                                             B.R.Dalai & M. Das\n                                             (Advocates)\n\n                For Respondent -             Mr.S.K. Nayak,\n                                             Additional Government Advocate\n    CORAM:\n    MR. JUSTICE D.DASH\n    MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA\n\n    Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023         :    Date of Judgment:03.10.2023\n\nD.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the jail, has\n\n    called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of\n\n    sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional\n\n    Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011 arising\n\n\n                                                                  Page 1 of 11\n\n    JCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                    -2-\n\n\n\n\nout of G.R. Case No.1975 of 2010 corresponding to Biramitrapur\n\nP.S. Case No.117 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub-\n\nDivisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Panposh.\n\n      The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for\n\ncommitting the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal\n\nCode, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, she has been\n\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n\n2.    Prosecution Case:-\n\n      This accused had married one Rajhesh Kumar Jha\n\n(informant-P.W.1) of Village-Patalkand under Biramitrapur\n\nPolice Station (P.S.) in the district of Sundergarh. The marriage\n\nbetween them had taken place on 20.06.2010. On 27.12.2010, it\n\nwas around 12.30 p.m., Rajesh (informant-P.W.1) came to his\n\nhouse after work for taking lunch. The accused then told Rajesh\n\n(P.W.1) that the food had not been prepared. Rajesh, therefore,\n\nasking the accused to feed his mother when the food would be\n\nready, left the house. He again returned around 2.00 p.m. Then he\n\nfound the doors of the house to have been locked from inside and\n\nthe Television was on with full sound. He then asked the accused\n\nto open the door. The doors of the house, being opened by the\n\naccused, Rajesh (P.W.1), entering therein decreased the volume of\n\nthe TV. He then went to the inner courtyard for having wash.\n\nThere he found there his mother, namely, Sita Devi with injuries\n\n                                                        Page 2 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                     -3-\n\n\n\n\nin a pool of blood. Accused being immediately asked by Rajesh\n\n(P.W.1) gave evasive replies. Going closer to the place where Sita\n\nDevi was lying dead, Rajesh (P.W.1) found that slit on the wind\n\npipe of his mother and there were also marks of injuries on her\n\nface and other parts of the body.\n\n      Rajesh (P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Sub-\n\nInspector (S.I.) of Police, who was then in-Charge of Inspector-in-\n\nCharge of Biramitra P.S. Receiving the said written report from\n\nP.W.1, the S.I. of Police (P.W.14), treated the same as FIR (Ext.1)\n\nand registering the case, took up investigation.\n\n3.    In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-\n\nP.W.14) examined the Informant (P.W.1). He visited the spot and\n\nfinding people to have gathered there, he examined some of\n\nthem. The accused, being there in the house, was arrested.\n\nInquest was conducted by the I.O. (P.W.14) over the dead body of\n\nthe Sita in presence of witnesses and report to that effect (Ext.4)\n\nwas prepared. The dead body then sent for post mortem\n\nexamination. The I.O. (P.W.14) also seized some incriminating\n\narticles such as bloodstained earth, sample earth, broken bangles\n\netc. from the backyard of the house of P.W.1 under seizure list\n\n(Ext.8). He also seized the wearing apparels of the accused under\n\nseizure list (Ext.5). It was stated that on 28.12.2010, the accused,\n\nwhile in police custody, disclosed to have concealed one Paniki\n\n                                                          Page 3 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                   -4-\n\n\n\n\n(vegetable cutter) and chopper underneath a chair kept in the\n\nhouse. She further stated that she would give recovery of the\n\nsame if taken to that place. The statement of the accused was\n\nrecorded under Ext.2 in presence of witnesses (P.W.2) and\n\nanother. It was said that the accused, pursuant to that statement,\n\nled the I.O. (P.W.14) and witnesses to her house and gave\n\nrecovery of the Paniki and chopper from the underneath a chair,\n\nwhich was lying there in a small room on the back side. The\n\nPaniki and chopper were seized under seizure list (Ext.3). The\n\naccused was also medically examined. The wearing apparels of\n\nthe deceased were seized on production by the police personnel,\n\nwho had accompanied the dead body for post mortem\n\nexamination. The incriminating articles were also sent for\n\nchemical examination through Court. On completion of the\n\ninvestigation, submitted the Final Form placing the accused to\n\nface the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of\n\nthe IPC.\n\n4.    Learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, on receipt of the Final Form,\n\ntook cognizance of said offence and after observing the\n\nformalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is\n\nhow the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid\n\noffence against the accused.\n\n\n                                                         Page 4 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                     -5-\n5.    The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in\n\ntotal fourteen (14) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, the\n\ninformant, who is the husband of the accused, had lodged the FIR\n\n(Ext.1) is P.W.1. P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 7 & 8 are the neighbors. Witnesses to\n\nthe inquest are P.Ws.4 & 6. P.Ws.9 & 11 are the witnesses to the\n\nseizure of the incriminating articles. The Doctor who had\n\nconducted the autopsy over the dead body of Sita Devi is P.W.10\n\nwhereas the Doctor, who had medically examined the accused is\n\nP.Ws.12. The I.O., at the end, has come to the witness box as\n\nP.W.14.\n\n      Besides leading the evidence by examining the above\n\nwitnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents\n\nwhich have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 13.\n\nOut of those; important are the FIR (Ext.1); inquest report (Ext.4);\n\nand the post mortem report. The disclosure statement of the\n\naccused had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.2 and the\n\nChemical Examiner's report is Ext.13.\n\n6.    The plea of the defence is that of complete denial. It was\n\nspecifically stated that she was being ignored and ill-treated by\n\nher husband (P.W.1) and on that day, her husband and mother-\n\nin-law had assaulted her and when her mother-in-law wanted to\n\nattack her by means of a knife, in the scuffle, she fell down and\n\n\n\n                                                           Page 5 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                    -6-\n\n\n\n\nher left leg hit the deceased and the knife somehow stuck at her\n\nneck.\n\n7.      The Trial Court, on examination of the evidence and their\n\nscrutiny, has found that the prosecution has established the\n\ncharge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.\n\n8.      Mr.M.Das, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused),\n\nwithout dispute the nature of death of Sita Devi to be homicidal,\n\nsubmitted that the prosecution evidence is not enough to\n\nconclude that the chain of events are complete in every respect to\n\narrive at an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused, who is\n\nthe perpetrator of the crime by ruling out all the hypothesis other\n\nthan the guilt of the accused. He submitted that the Trial Court\n\nought not to have placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.1 to\n\nconclude that at the relevant time, when he found the deceased\n\nlying dead in the inner court yard of the house, it was only the\n\naccused who was present in the house, which was closed form\n\ninside, which she had opened. He further submitted that such\n\nevidence of P.W.1 appears to be highly improbable when it is said\n\nthat the accused, having committed the murder, would very\n\nmuch remain present to be arrested in connection with the case.\n\nPlacing the deposition of P.W.1 and his FIR version, in view of\n\nsome variance as regards the stated previous visit by P.W.1 and\n\nthe subsequent visit, he contended that the prosecution case is\n                                                          Page 6 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                     -7-\n\n\n\n\ndoubtful. He, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment of\n\nconviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are\n\nliable to be set aside.\n\n9.    Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate\n\nfor the Respondent-State, submitted all in favour of the finding of\n\nguilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court.\n\nHe submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, being wholly reliable to\n\nthe extent that when he returned home, he found the doors of the\n\nhouse to have been bolted from inside and being called out when\n\nthe accused opened the door, soon thereafter he saw his mother\n\nlying dead in the court yard, the rest of the things as to how the\n\ndeceased sustained injuries and met her death being within the\n\nspecial knowledge of this accused since the given explanations\n\nappear to be totally false, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the\n\naccused for having committed the murder of her mother-in-law\n\nSita Devi.\n\n10.   Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully\n\ngone through the impugned judgment of conviction. We have\n\nalso travelled through the depositions of the witnesses examined\n\nfrom the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.1 to 14) and have perused\n\nthe documents admitted in evidence marked as Exts.1 to 13.\n\n11.   As has been stated by the Doctor, who had conducted the\n\nautopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he had noticed in\n                                                           Page 7 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                    -8-\n\n\n\n\ntotal twelve (12) injuries on the body of the deceased and out of\n\nthose, nine (9) were cut injuries. It is his evidence that all such\n\ninjuries were ante mortem in nature. He has further stated that\n\nthe cut injuries on the neck had proved fatal and the death was\n\non account of shock as a result of blood loss due to the injury to\n\nthe major vessel like carotid. All such findings have been\n\nrecorded in his report (Ext.6). He has clearly denied that such\n\ninjuries can appear if a person would defend himself/herself in a\n\nscuffle with the weapon in the hands of the attacker. With such\n\nevidence of the Doctor (P.W.10) coupled with the evidence of the\n\nI.O. (P.W.14), who had noticed the injuries seen on the deceased\n\nin his report (Ext.4) and that of P.W.1 and others we are left with\n\nno option but to conclude that death of Sita Devi was homicidal.\n\n12.   The prosecution case is not based on direct evidence. In\n\norder to bring home charge against the accused, the prosecution\n\nhas proved certain circumstances by examining P.W.1 and others.\n\n13.   Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, we find him to have\n\nstated that he had once come to the house during noon hours and\n\nas then the accused told him that food was not ready, he went\n\naway without taking the lunch and while going away, directed\n\nthe accused to feed his mother once the meal was ready. It is his\n\nfurther evidence that around 2.00 p.m., he returned for lunch and\n\nwhen eh arrived, he knocked at the doors vigorously when the\n                                                          Page 8 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                   -9-\n\n\n\n\ntelevision set was running in full volume. He has further stated\n\nthat knocks were not responded and, therefore, he turned around\n\nthe house and by going to the backside, called his wife (accused)\n\nto open the door. It has been further stated that thereafter when\n\nhe came to front door, the accused opened the door and he\n\nimmediately went and decrees the sound of the television. It has\n\nbeen further stated by P.W.1 that when he went to the inner\n\ncourtyard to have a wash, he found his mother lying on the\n\nground in a pool of blood and then the accused being asked\n\nabout it, she remained silent and thereafter disclosed to have\n\nkilled his mother-in-law. It is also his evidence that he had seen\n\nthe wind pipe of her mother to have been completely cut. The\n\nwitness, having been cross-examined, has stated that his wife and\n\nmother (deceased), were having separate hearth and they were\n\npreparing their food separately. He has denied the suggestion\n\nthrown during cross-examination that when he and his mother\n\n(deceased) were trying to kill the accused by means of a knife and\n\nthat during scuffle, the knife somehow touched the throat of her\n\nmother in causing such injury. Although such a suggestion has\n\nbeen given, no such supporting material appears to have been\n\nelicited from the lips of P.W.1 even remotely suggestive of such\n\nhappening in the house. This P.W.1 has thereafter lodged the FIR\n\n(Ext.1). The FIR narration reveals that when this P.W.1 arrived in\n\nthe house around 2.00 p.m, he knocked the door and as nobody\n                                                         Page 9 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                    - 10 -\n\n\n\n\nopened, the went towards backside and found his wife (accused)\n\nstanding on the backside door and then she opened the door\n\ngiving an entry to the accused to the house. It is also stated that\n\nthereafter he found his mother (deceased) lying therein in a pool\n\nof blood with her throat being cut and when asked the accused,\n\nshe gave evasive answer and, therefore, he apprehended that his\n\nmother had been murdered by this accused. Thus, the evidence of\n\nP.W.1 is consistent with the FIR version that when he arrived at\n\nhome, the doors were closed and finally the accused when\n\nopened the door after some time, he saw his mother (deceased)\n\nlying in a pool of blood on the backside of the house. The rest\n\npart of his evidence that the accused confessed to have committed\n\nthe murder of the deceased is, however, not stated in the FIR and,\n\ntherefore, the extra judicial confession of the accused as deposed\n\nto by P.W.1 in the Trial appears to be an introduction. Be that as it\n\nmay, the evidence of P.W.1 is acceptable on the score that at the\n\nrelevant time when he detected the dead body of his mother, the\n\naccused alone was in the house. The explanation given by the\n\naccused is that there was an attempt to his life by the accused and\n\nthe deceased and in that scuffle, the deceased has received such\n\ninjuries is not at all acceptable when the evidence of the Doctor\n\n(P.W.12) is gone through and the conduct of the accused is\n\nviewed. It has not only been stated by P.W.1 that the accused and\n\nthe deceased were not pulling on well, but the same has been the\n                                                          Page 10 of 11\nJCRLA No.49 of 2012\n                                                     - 11 -\n\n\n\n\n                 evidence of P.W.7 that the accused and her mother-in-law were\n\n                 not in good terms. Thus, here we find the prosecution to have\n\n                 established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was very\n\n                 much in the house when the deceased was found lying dead with\n\n                 cut injury on her throat and several other injuries on her body.\n\n                 The explanation, as has been provided by the accused, is found to\n\n                 be unacceptable and, therefore, basing on such evidence, we are\n\n                 of the view that the finding of guilt against the accused, as has\n\n                 been returned by the Trial Court for having murdered her\n\n                 mother-in-law (Sita Devi) has to sustain.\n\n                 14.     In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of\n\n                 conviction and the order of sentence dated 3rd March, 2012 passed\n\n                 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Sessions\n\n                 Trial No.49 of 2011 are hereby confirmed.\n\n                         Since the Appellant (accused), namely, Priyanka Jha @ Devi\n\n                 is on bail, she is directed to surrender before the Trial Court\n\n                 forthwith to serve out the sentence.\n\n                                                                (D. Dash)\n                                                                  Judge\n                              A.C.Behera, J.   I Agree.\n\n                                                               (A.C.Behera)\n                                                                   Judge\n\nSignatureBasu\n          Not Verified\nDigitally Signed\nSigned by: BASUDEV NAYAK\nReason: Authentication\nLocation: OHC\nDate: 06-Oct-2023 10:34:26\n                                                                            Page 11 of 11\n                 JCRLA No.49 of 2012