‘Temper Runs High Among Village Labourers, Respond Aggressively For Silly Reasons’: Orissa HC Alters Labour's Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide
The Orissa High Court has altered the murder conviction of a labourer, accused of killing a person by thrashing a laterite stone on his head, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.While giving partial relief to the accused-appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Ananda Chandra Behera observed,“The parties hail from the rural background and earned...
The Orissa High Court has altered the murder conviction of a labourer, accused of killing a person by thrashing a laterite stone on his head, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
While giving partial relief to the accused-appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Ananda Chandra Behera observed,
“The parties hail from the rural background and earned their livelihood by working as labourers. The judicial notice of the fact can be taken that was temper run high amongst such persons who were working as labourer hailing from the villages run high and for the silly reasons, they often behave and respond unexpectedly and aggressively.”
On 14.05.2012, when the deceased was near the underpass situated near the Paper Mill of Choudwar, the accused came and assaulted him on his head by a laterite stone, which resulted in his fall. Kalia Naayak (P.W.2), Pravakar Behera (P.W.3) and Bijaya Nayak (P.W.8) were present nearby and witnessed the incident.
The son of deceased namely thereafter lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Choudwar Police Station, which was treated as the FIR and on registering the case, he took up investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Sessions Court, after taking into account the testimonies of the eye-witnesses as well as the medical evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased and accordingly, held him guilty under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not dispute the fact that the appellant assaulted the deceased by a laterite stone, rather he contended that the conviction should have been under Section 304 Part I and not under Section 302, IPC.
Court’s Observations
At the outset, the Court noted that a part of the evidence of one of the eye-witnesses (P.W.2) has been suppressed who had stated to have seen the appellant and the deceased quarrelling moments before the assault.
The said witness had stated that during the course of quarrel, the deceased fall on the ground and shouted. Being enraged by this, the appellant lifted a laterite stone and thrashed the same on the head of the deceased.
The Court took into consideration the fact that the appellant did not cause any second assault to the deceased after thrashing the stone on his head. Therefore, there was no evidence of repeated assault. It also referred to the medical evidence rendered by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The medical evidence was also found to be silent on this aspect.
The Bench held that a perusal of the evidence given by P.Ws. 2 and 3 indicates that there was no pre-planning for committing murder of the deceased and the entire incident happened during the course of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased.
It was further observed by the Court that both the appellant as well as the deceased hailed from village areas and were working as labourers. It was of the considered opinion that judicial notice must be taken of the fact that temper runs high among the people hailing from rural background even for silly reasons and they often behave unexpectedly and aggressively,
“Having carefully considered all above circumstances emerging from the evidence, we are of the considered view that the offence can be properly categorized as one punishable under section 304-I of IPC,” the Court concluded.
Consequently, the conviction was modified to one under Section 304 Part I for culpable homicide and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Case Title: Anji @ Ranjit Naik v. State of Odisha
Case No.: CRLA No. 650 of 2014
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2023
Counsel for the Appellant: Mrs. Bharati Dash, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. G.N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 108