2024 (III) ILR-CUT-652
NABAKISHORE NAIK V. STATE OF ODISHA
👆📌CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 – Appeal U/s. 374 of Cr.P.C. filed against the judgement dt. 24.02.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2011 – Appellant was found guilty U/s. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for a period of six months – Defence took the plea of false implication.
📌👆 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 134 – Law is well settled that in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence is important – There is no requirement in the law of evidence that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact – The evidence has to be weighed and not counted – The legal system is opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses – It is thus, the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence, as has been provided under section 134 of the Evidence Act – If the evidence of a solitary witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, the same can be acted upon. (Para 9) The act of the appellant comes within the ambit of Section 302 or 304 of IPC. Held: There is no opinion that the bodily injury caused to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we are of the view that the act has been done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the deceased which comes under clause second of section 300 of I.P.C. – To decide the question of provocation, an objective test has to be applied as to whether in the opinion of the Court, the provocation would have made a reasonable man lose his self-control, whether he would have retaliated in the same way as the accused in fact did, which requires affirmative answers – Whether the provocation was such as to deprive the accused of his self-control, the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of provocation is required to be taken into consideration – The case would not come with the purview of section 302 of the I.P.C and it would come within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and fall within the first part of section 304 of the I.P.C.
📌👆 ALTERATION OF SENTENCE – The conviction of the appellant is altered from section 302 of IPC to one U/s. 304 Part-I of IPC – Resultantly, the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years.