“A Person in Acute Agony Is Not Expected to Tell a Lie”: Orissa High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Murder Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Dying Declaration
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Division Bench comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho upheld the conviction of Daktar Bhoi for the murder of his brother. The Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the judgment dated 18.05.2010 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Balangir at Patnagarh. The Bench confirmed the life sentence imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with additional punishment under Section 201 IPC, and a fine.
The Court observed that the prosecution had presented "cogent, trustworthy evidence" proving the appellant's culpability. It recorded that the injuries leading to the victim's death were consistent with the use of a bamboo stick and a trident recovered during the investigation. The judgment also stated that the appellant had attempted to dispose of the body to screen himself from legal consequences.
The case pertains to an incident dated 28.06.2009 in village Damkipali, where Daktar Bhoi was accused of murdering his brother, Jaylal Bhoi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, in furtherance of a grudge arising from a property dispute, killed the deceased by tying his neck to a wooden post and stabbing him with a trident. Thereafter, the appellant allegedly packed the body in a gunny bag and transported it on a bicycle to a nearby jungle to conceal it.
The First Information Report was lodged by Gahaki Bhoi, the deceased’s son, following which Hadibandhu Sethi (P.W.23), A.S.I. of Larambha Outpost, initiated an investigation. He was later joined by Inspector Kandarpasen Nayak (P.W.24), who took over the investigation. The police recovered the deceased's body from Budhiduguri Nala, packed in a gunny bag.
The investigation included forensic examination, inquest in presence of a Magistrate, and the seizure of relevant articles including a trident (M.O.IV), bamboo stick (M.O.III), blood-stained clothing, and the bicycle used for transporting the body. The post mortem, conducted by Dr. Durga Dutta Das (P.W.20), confirmed multiple stab wounds and a ligature mark on the neck. The cause of death was recorded as brain injury accompanied by shock.
The prosecution examined 24 witnesses. Key witnesses included:
- W.13, elder brother of the appellant and the deceased, who testified to hearing a distress call and observing the accused with a weapon near the victim’s body.
- W.16, nephew of the deceased and the accused, who provided an eyewitness account of the murder and subsequent disposal of the body.
Arguments were raised by the defence regarding inconsistencies in witness testimonies, absence of direct motive, and lack of conclusive forensic evidence linking the trident to the murder. The appellant also claimed false implication.
The Bench recorded that "both P.W.13 and P.W.16 noticed the presence of the appellant in the backside of the house of Chaturbhuja Bhoi where the dead body of the deceased was lying." It further stated that "the appellant was holding a lathi" and, according to P.W.16, it was affixed with a trident.
On the issue of minor inconsistencies in testimonies, the Court observed: "Minor inconsistent versions/discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the entire prosecution story, if it is otherwise found to be credible." The Bench deemed the eyewitness accounts credible and corroborated by medical and physical evidence.
Regarding motive, the judgment noted that "a fortnight prior to the incident, there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased relating to a mango tree." The Court accepted this as a contributing factor.
The medical findings confirmed injuries consistent with the weapons. The post mortem report (Ext.9) and the query report (Ext.10) confirmed that "all the injuries detected on the person of the deceased except the injury over the occiput were possible by the trident (M.O.IV) and the injury over occiput was possible by bamboo stick (M.O.III)."
The Court rejected the contention regarding absence of blood on the recovered trident. It stated: "Even though no blood was found in the trident (M.O.IV), in view of sufficient evidence available on record particularly that of P.W.13 and P.W.16 and the medical evidence, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty."
The Division Bench concluded that "the conviction of the appellant under sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. is quite justified and the sentence imposed thereunder by the learned trial Court is also proper and justified." The appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s judgment was confirmed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Radharaman Das Nayak
For the Respondent: Jateswar Nayak, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Daktar Bhoi versus State of Odisha
Case Number: JCRLA No. 21 of 2010
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho
[Read/Download order]
