ADITYA MAHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This Court granted special leave limiting it to the question of the nature of the offence committed by appellant NO. 1 Aditya Kumar Mohapatra who was convicted by the lower Courts under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentence to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was briefly as follows:

(2.) Shri Gobind Das, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Aditya was proceeding with his companions in order to give a report to the Police about the stone pelting at his house when he was surrounded by a hostile mob of villagers; in order to extricate himself. Aditya must have used the knife which resulted in a fatal injury being caused to the deceased. Learned Counsel submitted that the offence fell under the second or the fourth exception to Section 300 I. P. C. He also urged that having regard to the circumstances of the case and the lack of premeditation even if exceptions 1 and 4 did not apply, the offence would only fall under the second part of Section 304. We are unable to see any basis for the submission of Shri Gobind Das in the record. It is true that Aditya and one of his companions received some injuries but as pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court, they must have received the injuries after the stabbing of the deceased when they were chased. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not show that Aditya was surrounded by any hostile mob. On the other hand the evidence shows that it was Aditya and his companions that were indulging in abusive language and issuing challenges. There was no occasion at all for the exercise of any right of private defence nor could it be said that there was a sudden quarrel in the course of which Aditya inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage. The prosecution evidence shows and it is also the case of the accused that the deceased came to the spot as a peace-maker and certainly not as a trouble-maker. Even according to the statement of Aditya, the deceased appealed to everybody to be calm and peaceful. In that situation one fails to see any justification for the stab injury inflicted by Aditya on the deceased. We are also unable to see how the offence can possibly be brought within the second limb of Section 304 I. P.C. The injury was intended. It was not accidental. The injury was on a vital portion of the body. It had penetrated the chest to a depth of 1 and 3/4 inch. The left lung had been pierced. The fourth rib was cut through and through, indicating that considerable force had been used. The injury inflicted by the accused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The offence clearly fell within the 3rd limb of Section 300 I. P. C. Shri Gobind Das argued that having regard to the circumstance that the age of Aditya was only 18 years, the sentence might be reduced. We do not see how, if the conviction under Section 302 is confirmed, the sentence can be reduced. We would also like to add that though special leave was confined to the question of the nature of offence, on the insistence of Shri Govind Das, we did go through the evidence of some of the eye witnesses and we are satisfied that the conviction is correct on mertis also. The conviction of the other appellant has not been canvassed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.