Orissa High Court
Tika @ Hrudananda Das vs State Of Odisha on 21 June, 2021
CRLA No.725 of 2017
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE S. K. MISHRA
AND
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
M.C. No.1893 of 2017 (Arising out of CRLA No.725 of 2017)
Tika @ Hrudananda Das ...... Appellant.
- Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. Manas Ranjan Khuntia
For Opp. Party : Additional Standing Counsel for the State
I.A. No.1464 of 2019 (Arising out of CRLA No.245 of 2017)
Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das ...... Appellant.
- Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik
For Opp. Party : Additional Standing Counsel for the State
I.A. No.1508 of 2019 (Arising out of CRLA No.331 of 2017)
Lucky @ Sidhartha Sankar Prusty ...... Appellant.
- Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Respondent.
For Appellant : Miss Deepali Mohapatra
For Opp. Party : Additional Standing Counsel for the State
2
M.C. No.1884 of 2017, I.A. No.1815 of 2018 and I.A. No.831
of 2020 (Arising out of CRLA No.332 of 2017)
Biku @ Sunil Prusty ...... Appellant.
- Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra,
learned Senior Advocate
For Opp. Party : Additional Standing Counsel for the State
ORDER
12. 21.06.2021 These matters are taken up through Video
conferencing mode.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
In all these interim applications, arising out of four
criminal appeals are under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity)
the convicts-appellants, except Biku @ Sunil Prusty, the appellant
in CRLA No.332 of 2017, pray for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail upon appeal.
Biku @ Sunil Prusty, the appellant in CRLA No.332 of
2017, has prayed for interim bail in I.A. No.831 of 2020 on the
ground that his mother is suffering from Spondylosis. She is
being treated at S.C.B., Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.
From the information received from the I.I.C.,
Purighat P.S., Cuttack, it is apparent that the mother of the
appellant Biku @ Sunil Prusty is suffering from spondylosis and
undergoing treatment by Dr. Nihar Ranjan Nanda of Jholasahi,
Cuttack. However, it is not the case of the appellant-Biku @ Sunil
Prusty that there is nobody else to look after his mother. It is also
apparent from the information received by the Court that his
father Hrushikesh Prusty is working as a delivery man for Zomato
at Cuttack. His younger brother aged about 23 years is also
working at Patia in a Security Agency. His father and younger
brother are looking after his mother. Besides that Kusumlata
Prusty, the mother of the appellant/petitioner-Biku @ Sunil
Prusty, is able to take care of herself.
So, we are of the considered opinion that the convict-
appellant-Biku @ Sunil Prusty has not made out a case for his
release on interim bail. Hence, I.A. No.831 of 2020 application for
release on interim bail on the aforesaid medical ground is hereby
rejected.
He had filed I.A. No.1884 of 2017 for interim bail on
the ground of death of his grandfather and he had filed I.A.
No.1815 of 2018 on the ground of 1st death anniversary of his
grandfather. These two applications have become infructuous and
are dismissed as such.
Mr. Manas Ranjan Khatua, Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik
and Miss Dipali Mohapatra appearing for the appellants, namely,
Tika @ Hrudananda Das, Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das and Lucky @
Sidhartha Sankar Prusty in CRLA No.725 of 2017, CRLA No.245
of 2017 and CRLA No.331 of 2017 respectively have prayed for
grant of bail upon appeal by suspending the sentence under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
In Misc. Case No.646 of 2017 arising out of CRLA
No.245 of 2017 prayer of appellant-Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das
earlier had been rejected by order dated 12.12.2018.
In Misc. Case No.1489 of 2017 arising out of CRLA
No.331 of 2017 prayer of appellant-Lucky @ Sidhartha Sankar
Prusty had earlier been rejected by order dated 12.12.2018.
In Misc. Case No.1801 of 2019 arising out of CRLA
No.332 of 2017 prayer of appellant Biku @ Sunil Kumar Prusty @
Samal Prusty had been rejected by order dated 12.12.2018.
A careful examination of the impugned judgment
reveals that the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack
relying upon the evidences of P.W.8 and P.W.12, the eye
witnesses, the medical evidence coming forth in this case,
chemical examination report and other attending circumstances,
has come to the conclusion that a conspiracy was hatched in
pursuance of their common intention to commit murder of the
daughter of the informant by Biku @ Sunil Prusty by firing three
rounds from his pistol. Therefore, they have been convicted for
the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 342, 394 and 506/34 of
the IPC and Sections 25(1-B) (a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. They
have been sentenced to undergo various lengths of imprisonments
including imprisonment for life for the offence under Section
302/34 of the IPC.
It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the except appellant-Biku @ Sunil Prusty, no
overt act has been attributed against all other appellants and for
the act done by appellant-Biku @ Sunil Prusty, these appellants/
petitioners should not be allowed to remain incarcerated during
the pendency of the appeals.
Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submits that appellant-Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das in CRLA
No.245 of 2017 and one Sankar Mandal against whom the case
was split up on 16.12.2016, have several criminal cases pending
against them and this is a case of murder arising out of previous
enmity and conspiracy to commit the murder.
Learned counsel for the appellants also argue that
the informant and eye witnesses in this case are relations of the
deceased and their evidences cannot be taken into consideration
and it should be viewed with suspicion.
In our considered opinion the evidences of eye
witnesses appearing in this case cannot be viewed with a pinch of
salt as they are natural witnesses to the occurrence. The
occurrence took place inside the house of the informant. So, the
natural witnesses are the inmates of the house of the informant.
In such situation, it shall be ridiculous to look for an independent
eye witness to the occurrence. Moreover, the evidences of the eye
witnesses corroborated each other in material particulars and are
supported by the medical evidence available in this case. There
are also enough materials on record to show that the neighbours
and tenants of the informant have attributed the overt act to them
in their houses, before they trespassed into the house of the
informant.
So, we do not agree with the argument of the learned
counsels appearing for the appellants that on analysis there is a
good possibility and probability of the appeals being allowed in
favour of the appellants. Moreover, from the instructions received,
it is seen that the appellant-Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das in CRLA
No.245 of 2017 has four other criminal cases. Another accused
Sankar Mandal has six other criminal cases against him and as
he remained an absconder, his case was split up on 16.12.2016.
Thus, having considered the totality of the material available on
record, the criminal antecedents of the two accused persons and
the manner in which the crime was carried out, for the greater
and larger interest of the State and Society, we are of the opinion
that this is not a fit case to suspend the sentence and to grant
bail to the appellants.
Hence, all the aforesaid interim applications arising
out of said appeals are dismissed.
............................
S. K. Mishra, J.
...............................
Savitri Ratho, J.
CRLA Nos.725, 245, 331 and 332 of 2017
13. 21.06.2021 Since the appellants are in custody and their
applications for grant of bail upon appeal and suspension of
sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. are rejected, Registry is
directed to prepare the paper books as early as possible and
furnish the same to the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Additional Standing Counsel.
All these matters be listed for final disposal after
preparation of paper books.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 are
continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft
copy / downloaded copy of this order available in the High Court's
website or print out thereof at par with certified copies, subject to
attestation by learned concerned Advocate for the appellants along
with seal, in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587,
dated 25.03.2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798 dated
15.04.2021.
.........................
S.K. Mishra, J
TUDU
...............................
Savitri Ratho, J.
