Orissa High Court
Debraj @ Beda Majhi vs State Of Odisha on 11 June, 2021
CRLA No. 982 of 2019
Debraj @ Beda Majhi .... Appellant
-Vrs-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
I.A. No. 2100 of 2019
11. 11.06.2021
This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing
mode.
We have heard Mr. R.K. Rout, learned counsel for
the appellant/petitioner - Debraj @ Beda Majhi and Sk.
Zafrullah and Mr. G. N. Rout learned Additional Standing
Counsels for the State.
The appellant/petitioner has been convicted for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and
307 I.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi,
Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.29 of 2015 on 02.08.2017 and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six
months for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. No
separate sentence has been awarded for commission of the
offence punishable under Section - 307 I.P.C.
The prosecution allegations in brief are that the
appellant is the uncle of P.W.8, Parma Majhi. Santosh Majhi,
the deceased who is the nephew of the informant P.W. 1 Mayu
Majhi, had illicit relationship with P.W 8. On 14.12.2014 night
when the deceased and P.W 8 were sleeping in the straw heap
near her house, the appellant came and assaulted the
deceased and P.W.8 with a sharp cutting weapon and
threatened to kill her if she reported the matter to anybody.
The deceased died on the straw heap behind the house of the
2
appellant. P.W.8 was taken to DHH Bhawanipatna for
treatment. The informant on learning about this went to the
spot and thereafter reported the matter at the Police Station
on 10:00 a.m. the same day i.e. 15.12.2014. On the basis of
the report, the IIC, Sadar Police Station registered P.S. Case
No.242 dated 15.12.2014 and after investigation chargesheet
was submitted against the appellant for commission of offence
under Section 302 / 307 and Section 506 I.P.C.
Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant is in judicial custody since
19.12.2014 and though he has a fair chance of success in the
appeal, the chances of early hearing of the appeal are bleak.
His further submission is that the prosecution has examined
14 witnesses but none are eye witnesses. P.W. 8 the alleged
eye witness has not supported the prosecution case and has
stated that she could not identify their assailant. The appellant
has been convicted only on the basis of circumstantial
evidence which do not form a complete chain. He also submits
that on the date of occurrence the appellant/petitioner was not
present but has been implicated on the basis of his confession
before the police.
Mr. Zafrullah learned Additional Standing Counsel
opposes the prayer for bail stating that the body of the
deceased was found near the house of the appellant with
incised injury on the head and he has given recovery of the
weapon of offence - the axe from a paddy bag inside his
house and human blood of Group-B which is the blood group
of the deceased was detected on the axe. The evidence of
P.W. 5, Shankar Majhi, P.W.6, Subash Majhi, P.W. 8, Parma
Majhi, P.W.9, Dr. Sunil Kumar Padhi , P.W. 12, Dr.Abinash
Tirkey and P.W.14, the I.O implicates the appellant for which
3
he should not be released on bail. His further submission is
that P.W. 8 may not have named the appellant in court as she
is a rustic tribal lady and the appellant is her uncle who had
threatened her.
A perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge, Kalahandi reveals that he has relied on the medical
evidence, recovery of M.O.1 the axe, and the statement of
the victim recorded under Section - 164 Crl.P.C where she has
implicated the appellant, even though she did not implicate
him in Court and has stated that she deposed against the
appellant on being pressurized by the police. The learned trial
Court has observed that the reason for not implicating the
appellant may be due to apprehension of risk to her life and
fear of social stigma as she is a rustic tribal lady and acquitted
the appellant of the charge under Section-506 I.P.C but came
to the conclusion that the appellant has assaulted P.W.8 and
the deceased with the axe M.O. I resulting in the latter's death
and injury on P.W. 8 and convicted him for commission of
offences under Sec- 307 and 302 I.P.C and sentenced him
thereunder.
In our considered opinion the chain of circumstances is
not complete for which the appellant stands a fair chance of
success in the appeal. Moreover, the appellant has remained
in custody for more than six years and is a permanent resident
of Kalahandi District for which the chances of his absconding if
released on bail are bleak. Hence considering the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the
nature of evidence available against the appellant /petitioner,
we are inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the
appellant/petitioner.
4
Let the appellant/petitioner- Debraj @ Beda Majhi
be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed
just and proper by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi,
Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.29 of 2015 in the aforesaid
case.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
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 Courts
Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
..........................
S.K.Mishra,
Judge
.............................
Savitri Ratho,
Judge
Sukanta
