High Court Sets Aside Convictions in Matricide Case, Orders Release of Accused

A single-judge bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo heard the appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2019 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh in Criminal Trial No.22 of 2016 (Sessions). The appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for offences arising from the death of his mother on 14.01.2016 and attendant injuries to a relative, originally prosecuted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and convicted by the trial court under Sections 304 Part I and 323 IPC.

The High Court allowed the jail criminal appeal and set aside the convictions recorded by the trial court under Sections 304 Part I and 323 IPC, directing release of the appellant if his custody was not required in any other case and remitting the trial court records with a copy of the judgment. The Court rejected the plea of legal insanity for lack of medical evidence and held that contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence rendered the prosecution case on culpable homicide unsustainable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Coming to the case in hand, when the star witness (P.W.10) has stated that fifteen blows were given by the appellant to the deceased by means of ‘Pahuruni’ (thenga) and the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on her head, back, face, thigh, leg and hand, but only one external injury was noticed by the doctor (P.W.19) on the head of the deceased as per post mortem report (Ext.10) and the prosecution is unable to reconcile the oral evidence with the medical evidence, in my humble view, it cannot be said that P.W.10 is an absolutely truthful and reliable witness… Therefore, it would be risky to accept the version of P.W.10 to convict the appellant for assaulting the deceased and thereby committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thus, the conviction of the appellant under section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law.”

Background The prosecution case alleged that on 14 January 2016, between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. at village Gotabandh the appellant assaulted his mother, Gurubari Chandan, with a ‘Pahuruni’ (thenga), causing fatal injuries, and also struck his paternal uncle Balabhadra Chandan (P.W.10) who raised an alarm. Co-villagers reportedly intervened, the weapon was seized and the deceased was taken to C.H.C., Koksara where she was declared dead. Koksara P.S. Case No.10 of 2016 was registered under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The Investigating Officer conducted an inquest, seized weapons and garments, collected samples and forwarded the weapon for medical opinion; post mortem (Ext.10) recorded one external lacerated wound over the temporal region with fracture and extradural haematoma.

At trial the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 304 Part I and 323 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines to run concurrently. The appellant denied guilt and the defence raised a plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC. The High Court noted the statutory formulation: “Section 84 of the I.P.C. provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.” The Court found no medical evidence or conclusive oral evidence to establish legal insanity and observed that village hearsay about the appellant’s mental condition did not meet the legal standard. The Court further found that the ocular account—principally the informant’s claim of multiple blows causing injuries to many parts of the body—stood in marked tension with the medical findings of a single antemortem injury. The Court held that where medical evidence materially improbabilised the ocular account, reliance on that solitary witness to sustain culpable homicide was unsafe. The Court also commented on the non-production of the medical examination report for the injured informant (P.W.10), observing that while Section 391 Cr.P.C. could be used to summon the doctor, the passage of time made such exercise undesirable. For these reasons the High Court concluded that convictions under Sections 304 Part I and 323 IPC were unsustainable, allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant’s release if not detained elsewhere. The Court also recorded appreciation for the Amicus Curiae and fixed his professional fees at Rs.7,500/-, directing payment.

Case Details: Case No.: JCRLA No. 70 of 2019 Case Title: Gousinga Chandan v. State of Odisha Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Tripathy, Additional Standing Counsel