Manguli Bhal & Others vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 5587 Ori

Orissa High Court

Manguli Bhal & Others vs State Of Orissa on 19 August, 2025

               THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               CRA No. 370 of 1992

AFR   (In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 382 of

      the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)



      Manguli Bhal & Others          .......                      Appellants

                               -Versus-

      State of Orissa                .......                       Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing:29.07.2025 :Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the

judgment dated 28.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Kendrapara in Sessions Trial Case No. 214/8 of 1990 arising out

of G.R. Case No. 593 of 1989, whereby the appellants along with others

were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and

sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to undergo further

rigorous imprisonment for three months. The remaining sixty accused

persons were acquitted of all charges.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025, the IIC, Pattamundai

Model Police Station has submitted a written report dated 15.07.2025,

inter alia, informing this Court that appellant no.2-Jagir Bhal, appellant

no.4-Pada @ Padmanav Nayak, appellant no.7-Batakrushna Pradhan

and appellant no. 10-Pati @ Patitapaban Bhal have already expired, and

the rest of the appellants are residing in their village. Along with the

report, the death certificates have been submitted, which were taken on

record.

3. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants

and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.07.1989 at about 3:30

PM, one Raj Kishore Pradhan (P.W.5) was allegedly chased by accused

No. 09 Jadumani Rout (later acquitted) along with his wife and daughter

while he was on his way to mill paddy. It was alleged that they were

Page2 of 13 armed with thenga and tenta and intended to assault him. The said Raj

Kishore ran towards the village and took shelter, following which the

accused persons, alleged to be seventy in number, armed with weapons

like tenta, farsa, and sticks, chased him and reportedly pelted stones,

broke open the doors of houses, entered therein, assaulted some

villagers and removed household articles and agriculture produce.

5. The oral information regarding the occurrence was given by

P.Ws. 16 to 17, the then officer-in-charge of Pattamundai Police Station,

at about 7 PM on the same day, which was reduced into writing and

registered as the plain paper FIR. Investigation ensued and Charge-

Sheet was filed against seventy persons under Sections 454 and 395

IPC, resulting in their commitment to face trial before the Court of

Sessions.

6. In support of the charges, the prosecution examined seventeen

witnesses. P.Ws. 1 to 12, 15 and 16 were projected as eye-witnesses to

the occurrence. P.W. 13 was the doctor who had allegedly examined the

injured persons. P.W. 14 was a seizure witness, and P.W. 17 was the

Investigating Officer. The defence examined four witnesses and relied

Page3 of 13 on several documents, including injury reports, which showed that

several accused persons had sustained injuries during the occurrences.

7. The defence case was one of total denial and pleaded that a petty

quarrel between two rival village factions occurred on the village road,

in the course of which both sides sustained injuries. It was further

contended that no incident of house trespass or dacoity occurred and

that the case was the result of group enmity, a counterblast to other

proceedings between the parties.

8. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, came to

a finding that there indeed existed deep-seated enmity and party faction

between the complainant side and the accused persons, which was

evident from the FIR and other materials on record. It was noted that

most of the prosecution witnesses were related and interested, and there

were proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the parties. The

Court found that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries

sustained by the accused persons, and that many of the injuries on vital

parts of the body gave rise to a presumption that the genesis of the

occurrence had been suppressed.

Page4 of 13

9. The trial Court noted significant inconsistencies in the evidence

of prosecution witnesses. While P.W.5 alleged assault and injuries, no

injury was found on him by the doctor. P.W.4 claimed injury from a

stone thrown by another person who is not before the Court. P.W.6

sustained a simple injury, while others had either no injury or their

injuries were not supported by medical evidence. The trial Court despite

these infirmities, chose to disbelieve the case under Section 454 IPC but

found the appellants guilty under Section 395 IPC relying primarily on

the evidence of P.W.11, who claimed to have seen the accused looting

articles from her house. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment

is extracted herein below:-

"Thus in the net result the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case against any of the accused persons conclusively for the offence u/s 454 I.P.C. and the prosecution has also equally failed to bring home the offence conclusively u/s, 395 I.P.C, against accused No.1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,13,16,17,18,19,20,22,2 4,25,26,29,31,32,53,34,33,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, 45,46,47,43,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62,63 ,64,65,67,69 and 70. They are given benefit of doubt. They are found not guilty and are set at liberty by virtue of section 235 Cr.P.C.

Page5 of 13 Accused persons serial No, 2 Manguli Bhol, 3 Jagir Bhal, 21 Parsuram Jena, 23 Padmanava Nayak 27 Benudhar Pradhan, 28 Asok Kumar Pradhan, 30 Batakrushna Pradhan, 60 Paramananda Das, 66 Rabindra Kumar Samal and 68 ,Patitapaban Bhal are found guilty for the offence u/s 395 I.P.C. and are convicted thereunder. Place the accused persons for hearing on the question of sentence.

Heard the accused convicts and their advocate on the question of sentence. They have sought for a lenient consideration of imparting sentence. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and socio economic rural life condition of the accused convicts, each of the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years term and each of them are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000/- (One thousand). In default of payment of fine amount, the defaulting accused convicts are to undergo further R.I. for three months term."

10. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has

strenuously argued that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate

the serious lapse of the prosecution in not explaining the injuries to the

accused persons. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in

(1976) 4 SCC 394, wherein it was held that non-explanation of injuries

sustained by the accused at the time of the occurrence or during the

Page6 of 13 altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can

infer that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the

occurrence.

11. Further reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of

this Court in Krishna Padhi and Others v. State of Orissa, reported in

(1992) 5 OCR 529, wherein it was held that non-explanation of injuries

assumes greater importance when the witnesses are inimical and the

defence version is more probable. It is submitted that in the present

case, the evidence of P.W.11, on which conviction was based, was itself

shaky and suffered from exaggeration and lack of corroboration, thus

not fitting into the category of wholly reliable evidence as contemplated

in Veli Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614.

12. More significantly, the informant himself, namely Basant Kumar

Pradhan, has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the dispute

between the parties has long been resolved amicably and they now live

harmoniously. It is also mentioned that four of the convicted appellants

have already passed away during the pendency of the appeal and the rest

are old and ailing, living peacefully with their families.

Page7 of 13

13. On careful consideration of the materials on record and the

submissions advanced, this Court finds that the prosecution's case

suffers from a vital infirmity namely, the failure to explain the injuries

sustained by the accused persons during the same occurrence. The

record reveals that the accused Kalia sustained injuries in course of the

incident, which the prosecution has not even attempted to explain. The

prosecution witnesses have either denied knowledge of such injuries or

offered vague and evasive statements, which cast a serious doubt on the

veracity of the prosecution's case.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar,

reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 has categorically held that non-

explanation of injuries found on the accused by the prosecution assumes

significant importance, especially in cases where the defence version

competes in probability with that of the prosecution and the evidence

comes from interested or inimical witnesses. The failure of the

prosecution to offer any explanation for the injuries found on the

accused, when the same could have been reasonably explained,

indicates that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, and the

Page8 of 13 evidence presented cannot be wholly relied upon. The Hon'ble Court

held thus-

"The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the pro- secution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State prosecution case. of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima (supra) there may be cases where the non- explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises."

Page9 of 13

15. The proposition is not that every non-explained injury vitiates the

prosecution, but where such omission is coupled with interested

testimony and suppression of material facts, it becomes fatal. As

observed in Krushna v. State of Orissa, reported in (1992) 5 OCR 529,

which relies upon and reaffirms the aforementioned decision, the Court

cautioned against relying on witnesses who deny seeing injuries on the

accused, despite their visible nature, as such conduct undermines their

credibility and neutrality. The Court held thus-

"Added to it, we find that the accused Kalia had sustained an injury. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that wher-ever there is an injury on an accused which is explained, the prosecution case is bound to fail. Where there is failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused, it may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. This view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Mohar Rai and Bharat Rai v. The State of Bihar: AIR 1963 SC 1281. Non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution affects the prosecution. (See Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar: AIR 1976 SC 2263). Such non-explanation assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witness or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where, however, the evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from false-hood, the mere fact that the injuries are

Page10 of 13 not explained by the prosecu-tion cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and conse-quently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (See Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P.:

1990 (11) Crimes 584). Where it is shown that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented a true version, the prosecution case becomes vulnerable. Non-explanationof the injuries may not affect the prosecution case as a whole, but the defence can contend on the basis of non- explanation of injuries found on the accused that the accused could have had a right of privets defence or at any rate a reasonable doubt arises in this regard."

16. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

suffers from these very defects. Witnesses examined by the prosecution

are either related to the informant or otherwise inimically disposed

towards the accused. Their consistent silence regarding the injuries

sustained by the accused, particularly when the injury is serious and is

medically proven, indicates suppression of material aspects and raises

grave suspicion as to whether the prosecution has presented a true and

fair account of the incident.

17. Furthermore, the defence has provided a plausible explanation

that the occurrence was not unilateral and that the accused had also

sustained injuries during the scuffle, which could indicate an altercation

Page11 of 13 where the right of private defence cannot be ruled out. The affidavit

filed by the informant also omits any reference to injuries to the

accused, further confirming suppression of the genesis and origin of the

occurrence.

18. Given the above, it is no longer safe to rely upon the prosecution's

version to sustain conviction. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses

stands compromised on account of suppression, omission, and interested

testimony. The legal position being clear from a catena of decisions

referred above, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

In view of the foregoing discussion and in light of the settled position of

law, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

19. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 395 IPC

against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt

must necessarily go to the appellants.

20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence

passed by the learned trial court are hereby set aside. The appellants are

Page12 of 13 acquitted of all the charges and the bail bonds furnished by them stand

discharged.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2025/Ashok

Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA

Location: High Court of Orissa Page13 of 13 Date: 21-Aug-2025 10:22:37