Orissa High Court: In an appeal arising from the judgment and order of the Trial Court wherein the appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, the division bench of S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., held that the Trial Court was correct in relying on the sole testimony of the minor daughter who was eye-witness to the crime as her testimony was cogent and had been corroborated by medical evidence.
On 25-09-2008, the appellant had returned home when he asked the deceased to serve him food. Upon being asked to wait, the appellant became furious and murdered his wife (‘the deceased’) by attacking her with a ‘katuri’ on her neck, face, head, and ear. The 13-year-old daughter of the couple was the only eye-witness to the crime and raised the alarm. The Trial Court relied upon the sole evidence of the minor daughter, which was found to be cogent, reliable, trustworthy, and thoroughly corroborated by the medical evidence, and found the appellant guilty under S. 302 of the Penal Code, 1860.
The appellant contended that the court could not rely on the sole evidence of a child witness and she had been tutored by her maternal uncle. The High Court found no merit in these contentions of the appellant. The Court noted that no particular age has been prescribed as a demarcating line for treating a witness incompetent to testify. The competency to testify depends on the ability to understand questions and to give rational answers.
Regarding the witness being tutored, the Court held that the evidence of a child witness should be scanned carefully, and preliminary questions can be asked as a rule of caution if doubt arises about the competency of the witness, but the absence of such examination would not render the child’s evidence inadmissible. The Court noted that in this case there was no evidence suggesting that the witness had been tutored. The Court opined that considering how the witness withstood the cross-examination and gave minute details of the incident, she had no infirmity in her understanding of the facts and could narrate the same correctly. Furthermore, her testimony was duly corroborated by medical evidence.
The appellant also contended that it is a case of grave and sudden provocation, and it would amount to culpable homicide, not murder. The Court rejected this contention as well and held that this was not a case of a sudden fight or quarrel or provocation that was grave enough to make the appellant lose his balance of mind and mercilessly murder his wife in front of his minor daughter. The Court opined that a housewife cannot be said to have caused grave and sudden provocation to her hungry husband when she requests her to wait for a while as the preparation of food is under process.
The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant stating that the Trial Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty under S. 302.
[Raikishore Jena v. State of Odisha, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 2577, judgment dated 28-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Smt Mina Kumari Das, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
