Orissa High Court
Pratap Ch. Padhy vs State Of Odisha on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.825 of 2018
Pratap Ch. Padhy .... Appellant
Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Smt. Saswata Patnaik, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 13.07.2021
04. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This is a petition by the Appellant- petitioner received from
the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Berhampur (Welfare
Services, Male Section) for regular bail. The Appellant was
convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur
by the judgment dated 1st December, 2018 in Sessions Trial
No.57 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for a further one
year.
3. At the outset, it is clarified that the details of the case
discussed hereafter by this Court is only for the purpose of
considering the Appellant's case for bail. It is not to be
construed as the final view of this Court on merits. The case of
the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and in
// 2 //
particular the evidence of one Lili Sahu (PW-17) to whom the
Appellant is said to have made an extra judicial confession,
after the crime had taken place, that he had himself killed the
deceased. The Appellant purportedly gave her a gold chain and
asked her not to disclose that fact to anyone.
4. The above statement appears to the Court to be improbable
when the evidence of PW-17 is viewed as a whole. Elsewhere
in her deposition she stated that when she visited the house of
the Appellant and enquired if his wife i.e. the deceased was in
the house, the Appellant replied in the negative. When PW-17
was leaving the house, she is supposed to have heard shouts
and when she again asked if the deceased is in the house, the
Appellant purportedly told her not to ask anything about his
family affairs. In this background it seems unlikely that the
Appellant would thereafter have voluntarily gone to PW-217 to
make the extra judicial confession and entrusted a gold chain to
her.
5. It further appears from para 7 of the deposition of PW-17
that she admitted to having been told by the police what and
how to depose. For some reason, the Prosecutor did not get this
statement clarified by PW-17 by seek her re-examination with
the permission of the trial Court. As a result, there are doubts
as regards the reliability of the evidence of PW-17.
6. The Appellant has been in custody since 7th November,
2014. It appears unlikely that this appeal can be taken up for
hearing at an early date.
// 3 //
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court directs that the
Appellant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this
appeal subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
8. It is again clarified that the observations in this order will on
the merits of the case is only for the purposes of bail and will
not affect the final decision in the appeal.
9. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
10. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may
utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's
website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the
concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's
Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by
Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ajit Kumar Dutta/
Sangita Patra
