STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MISHRA PARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Death Reference No.3 of 2013 arises out of Criminal Trial No.67 of 2011 in which the learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur has held the accused guilty of offence under Sections 376/302 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted him thereunder. On such conviction, the learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur sentenced the convict to death under Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 376 of I.P.C. and further directed that the convict be hanged by neck till his death. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that the proceedings be submitted to this Court for confirmation of death sentence. Challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the convict Mishra Paraja has filed CRLA No.242 of 2013 before this Court. In such background, the above noted death reference and criminal appeal having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that on 27.02.2011 at about 4.00 P.M., the deceased, Lachhandei Gond was sitting under a mango tree bordering the land of P.W.6 and P.W.8. P.W.6 is the wife of P.W.8 and at that time both of them were working in their field. The convict-appellant at that point of time came to the spot and removed the wearing saree of the deceased and committed rape on her. When the deceased cried, P.W.6 rushed to the spot and P.W.8 proceeded to the village to call the villagers. On reaching the spot, P.W.6 dragged out the convict-appellant, who was then sleeping over the deceased in naked condition and was having sex with her. P.W.6 dealt two slaps to the convict-appellant and admonished him. Being infuriated, the convict-appellant chased away P.W.6 in naked condition saying that he would also commit rape to P.W.6 and would kill her. So, P.W.6 ran away to the village out of fear to inform the villager. Thereafter, both P.W.6 and her husband, P.W.8 came to the spot along with other villagers and found the dead body of the deceased. According to P.W.8, he reached the spot about 10 minutes after the incident. P.W.1, who happens to be the informant and son of the deceased on being informed by P.W.8 also rushed to the spot along with other villagers and found that his mother was already dead and the convict-appellant was carrying the dead body of his mother in naked condition putting her on his shoulder towards 'Masanipada' burial ground. Immediately P.W.1 along with others detained the convict-appellant there and came to Umerkote P.S. to lodge the F.I.R. under Ext.8. The said F.I.R. under Ext.8 was scribed by P.W.16 as per the instruction of P.W.1. On the strength of the said report, the police registered Umerkote P.S. Case No.46 of 2011 and took up the investigation. During course of investigation, the I.O. examined the informant and others, conducted the inquest over the dead body of Lachhandei Gond. The police also made requisition for postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. They also seized the wearing apparels of both the accused and deceased and sent different materials for chemical examination to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Berhampur, Ganjam. The police arrested the convict-appellant on 27.02.2011 and forwarded him. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the convict-appellant on 24.06.2011 for offences under Sections 302/376/294/506 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C., Umerkote by order dated 12.08.2011 took cognizance of offence under Sections 302/376/294/506 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.121 of 2011 arising out of Umerkote P.S. Case No.46 of 2011. Subsequently, the learned J.M.F.C. committed G.R. Case to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur. On the basis of said commitment, Criminal Trial No.67 of 2011 was registered in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur. By order dated 21.08.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur framed charges under Sections 302/376 of I.P.C. against the present convict-appellant. The convictappellant stood his trial under Sections 302/376 of I.P.C. for committing murder and rape on the deceased, Lachhandei Gond. The plea of the convict-appellant before the learned Sessions Judge was of complete denial.

(3.) In order to establish the charges against the convictappellant, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant, who is the son of the deceased. P.Ws 1,2,3,4,5,7,10 and 12 are post occurrence witnesses, who have come to the spot after the alleged occurrence. P.Ws.6 and 8 claimed to have seen part of the occurrence, particularly relating to rape. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and prepared postmortem report under Ext.4. P.W.14 is the doctor, who examined the convict-appellant on police requisition and prepared his report under Ext.6. P.W.16 is the scribe of the F.I.R. (Ext.8). P.W.13 is a witness to the seizure. P.Ws.11 and 15 have not deposed anything regarding occurrence. P.W.17 and P.W.18 are the Investigating Officers.