ARJUN TELI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda having found the accused guilty of offences under Sections 302/376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to death under Section 302 of the I.P.C. andrigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default,further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 376/511 ofthe I.P.C. has submitted the proceedings in S.T. Case No.3 of 2009 ofhis Court for confirmation. THE convict has also filed Criminal AppealNo.133 of 2010 challenging the aforesaid order of conviction andsentence. THErefore, both the Death Reference and the criminal appealwere heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case is depicted as under: THE accused is the brother-in-law (sala) of the youngerbrother of the husband of the informant, Shanti Raksa. In the afternoonof 24.4.2008 the informant, Shanti Raksa along with DharanidharSandha (P.W.5) was watering Chilli plants in the field. At about 5.30P.M., the accused came to the field, offered to take Arpita, the five yearsold daughter of the informant, for giving her biscuits. Arpita was thenplaying in the field near her mother. Neither the informant nor Arpitaagreed to the proposal of the accused. Without heeding to theirobjections, the accused took Arpita with him and went away. SinceArpita did not return home till evening, the informant along with herbrother-in-law, Sambaru started searching for Arpita. When she foundthe accused and asked him about Arpita, the accused gave out that hehad left Arpita near the 'Nala' and then he went towards the RailwayStation, further stating that he was going in search of Arpita. THEinformant informed the matter to some of the villagers and they all went in search of the accused. At Bamra Railway station they found theaccused and from there they brought him to village-Pandripathar wherethe accused had fed biscuits to Arpita. In the village, it was learnt fromTulasi Munda that the accused had gone to her house with a young girland asked for water and she supplied water whereafter the accused andthe girl went towards the cultivable lands. THEreafter the search partywent towards the cultivable lands along with the accused and foundsome blood stains there. THE dress and hair of Arpita were lyingscattered on the cultivable lands. THE belt of the accused was alsofound lying there. THEn on being asked, the accused confessed to havecommitted murder of Arpita. A further search being made, the deadbody of Arpita was found lying near a 'Falsa' bush on the land ofSambaru Munda. Two of the villagers kept guard on the dead body andthe informant went, got an F.I.R. scribed and lodged the same at thePolice Station, on the basis of which the O.I.C., Govindpur PoliceStation registered P.S.Case No.33 of 2008 and took up investigation.During the course of investigation, the I.O. examined the informant,sent requisition to Sambalpur for deputation of Scientific Officer,proceeded to the spot and found the dead body of Arpita having injuriesand also other incriminating materials lying in the field. THE I.O.brought the accused to the police station and sent him for his medicalexamination. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of thedeceased and thereafter sent the body for post mortem examination. Heseized different incriminating materials including the belt of the accused which were lying on the spot. About a month after the occurrence theO.I.C. of the Police Station having been transferred, the investigation ofthe case was taken over by his successor, Mr. B.P. Panda, who oncompletion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused.

(3.) ANOTHER strong and clinching circumstance is the recovery ofthe blood stained belt of the accused from the spot where the dead bodywas found and the seizure of his trouser stained with blood and suchblood stains matching with blood group of the deceased. It is in theevidence of P.W.2 that in the cultivable land they found the torn shirt and pant of the deceased and the belt of the appellant all of which hadmarks of blood. The belt of the appellant has been identified in court asM.O.IV. It is in the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14) that after reaching thespot he requisitioned the services of Scientific Officer from DistrictForensic Science Laboratory, Sambalpur. Scientific Officer came to thespot, collected the aforesaid articles from the spot, prepared separatesealed packets and handed over the same to P.W.14, who seized thesame under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.2 has stated in her evidence that shehad seen the accused putting on belt (M.O.IV). No question has beenput to her about the identification of the belt, nor any suggestion wasgiven that the M.O.IV was not recovered from the spot. P.W.3 has alsostated in his evidence that on the spot they found the belt of theaccused lying, apart from the wearing apparels of the deceased. In thecross-examination, he has further explained that he had seen theappellant putting on that belt on earlier occasion. No suggestion wasgiven to him by the defence that the belt was not recovered from thespot or that it did not belong to the appellant. P.W.3 is none other thanthe brother-in-law (Bhinoi) of the appellant and there is no reason forhim to implicate the appellant falsely. P.W.4 also corroborates theevidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 14 about the recovery of the belt from thespot, though he has not stated whose belt it was. Apart from thewearing apparels of the deceased (M.Os. I to III), the belt had alsocontained blood stains. Under Ext.13, i.e., the forwarding report of theS.D.J.M., all the incriminating articles along with the trouser of the appellant having stains of blood and seized under Ext.12 by P.W.14were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Sambalpur forchemical examination. The chemical examination report vide Ext.14reveals that the trouser of the appellant contained human blood of 'O'group and the belt also contained human blood stains, though its groupcould not be opined. The deceased had 'O' group blood which was alsofound on her wearing apparels recovered from the spot. The blood groupof the appellant is 'B-positive' as revealed from his medical examinationreport under Ext.6. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of thewitnesses and the documentary evidence as referred to above. Noexplanation has come forward from the appellant about the presence ofstains of human blood on his belt and trouser, which, having regard tothe circumstances, must be held to be that of the deceased. Therefore,the recovery of the belt of the appellant from the spot with stains ofhuman blood and the blood stains on the trouser of the appellantmatching with the blood group of the deceased and not that of theappellant are strong circumstances which are unequivocally consistentonly with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused with regard to thecommission of murder of the deceased.