Bhaba @ Bhabagrahi Panda And Others vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 10824 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bhaba @ Bhabagrahi Panda And Others vs State Of Odisha on 9 December, 2025

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      CRA No. 252 of 1990

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) read with
Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)

Bhaba @ Bhabagrahi Panda and Others          .......       Appellants

                                  -Versus-

State of Odisha                     .......               Respondent

      For the Appellants : Ms. Ananya Mishra, Advocate


      For the Respondent : Mr. Raja Bhusan Dash,
                           Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

 THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearings: 20.11.2025 ::     Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025

S.S. Mishra, J.     The present Criminal Appeal is directed against

the judgment and order dated 7th of August 1990 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No.91 of 1984. By the
 said judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty of

the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 457 of the Indian

Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 7 years for offence U/s.395 of the Indian Penal

Code and further R.I. for 6 months for offence under Section 457 of

IPC. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2.    Vide order of this Court dated 01.07.2025, the appeal stood

abated qua appellant no. 3, he having expired in the year 2017.

During hearing of the present appeal, when the judgment was

reserved, learned counsel for the State submitted that appellant no. 2,

Benguli @ Surendra Tripathy, had also expired on 14.09.2020.

Consequently, in the absence of any application under Section 394

Cr.P.C. filed by their legal heirs or next friends, the appeal stands

abated insofar as appellant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. As regards

appellant nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6, they are stated to be alive. The report and

the death certificates have been taken on record.

3.    Heard Ms. Ananya Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants

and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for

the State.



                                                           Page 2 of 23
 Brief Facts of the Case

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that after taking

dinner on the night of 12.10.1982, the members of the family of

Jagabandhu retired to bed. The family members present in the house

were: Puspalata Mishra (P.W.1), wife of Jagabandhu; Bijay Mishra

(P.W.2), son of Jagabandhu; Pakan Mishra (P.W.3), daughter-in-law

of Jagabandhu; Ajay Mishra (P.W.7), another son of Jagabandhu; and

one Santosh Mishra, brother of Ajay Mishra. Jagabandhu slept in his

bedroom, while Puspalata slept in the passage room leading to the

backyard (badi). P.W.2 Bijay, P.W.7 Ajay and Santosh slept in

another bedroom, and P.W.3 Pakan slept in her own room.

At about 10:00 p.m., P.W.1 Puspalata and P.W.7 Ajay heard

knocking at the badi door. When Puspalata enquired about the

identity of the caller, the response came from accused Bhabagrahi

Panda, who identified himself as "Manus." Both Puspalata and Ajay

recognised his voice. On being questioned as to the purpose of his

presence, accused Bhaba stated that they had come to take Rs. 500/-

for consuming liquor. Immediately thereafter, Bhabagrahi Panda and

his associates broke open the badi door and entered the house, armed

with deadly weapons and carrying torch lights.

The prosecution further asserts that some of the accused

assaulted Puspalata, and Jagabandhu was forcibly tied to a pole fixed

in the courtyard. When P.W.2 Bijay protested, one of the accused

dealt a knife blow on the left side of his chest, causing a bleeding

injury. It is also alleged that the accused persons forcibly removed the

earrings and necklace worn by Puspalata. When they attempted to

snatch the earrings of P.W.3 Pakan, she pleaded with them not to

touch her, stating that she would voluntarily hand over her ornaments,

which she then did.

Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly confined all the

inmates, including Jagabandhu, in a bedroom and proceeded to break

open trunks and boxes kept in various rooms, removing gold and

silver ornaments, clothes, utensils and other household articles. Some

of the accused persons also broke open the granary and removed a

substantial quantity of paddy stored therein, along with a large

amount of molasses kept in the house.

After the accused persons fled with the looted property, P.W.7

Ajay Mishra went to Tihidi Police Station to report the incident. The

FIR was registered at 7:30 a.m. on 14.10.1982. Sridhar Nayak

(P.W.11), A.S.I. of Tihidi Police Station, took up investigation, as the

then O.I.C., Sri R. Nayak, was on leave, and P.W.11 was in charge.

He visited the spot, examined witnesses, and seized the stolen articles

from different accused persons. Upon completion of investigation,

charge-sheet was submitted, and the accused persons stood trial. By

judgment dated 18.10.1985, the learned trial Court acquitted all the

accused persons.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the victims preferred Criminal

Revision No. 579 of 1985 before this Court. Vide order dated

20.10.1989, the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to

the learned trial Court for fresh disposal. On remand, the learned trial

Court passed the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in this

appeal.

5. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. P.W.1 Puspalata

Misra, P.W.2 Bijay Misra, P.W.3 Pakan Misra and P.W.7 Ajay Misra

were the inmates of the house of Jagabandhu and claimed to be

eyewitnesses to the occurrence. These witnesses sought to establish

that all the accused persons committed dacoity in their house on the

night of the incident.

P.W.4 Krushna Chandra Tiadi @ Tripathy is a seizure witness

to a bucket allegedly recovered from the possession of accused

Nakula Naik, which was claimed to belong to the family of

Jagabandhu. P.W.5 Dinabandhu Rout, the Medical Officer, examined

and certified the injuries sustained by P.W.1 Puspalata, P.W.2 Bijaya

Kumar Misra and Jagabandhu Misra. P.W.6 Pagala Tripathy is a

witness to the seizure of various articles recovered from the house of

accused Bhabagrahi Panda.

P.W.8 B.N. Misra, the then Judicial Magistrate First Class,

conducted the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) of the

properties recovered from the houses of different accused persons.

P.W.9 Harekrishna Padhi claimed to be a seizure witness of a

"Dekchi" (M.O. VII) from the house of accused Kasi Tiadi and Rabi

Tiadi. He also stated that he had seen broken boxes and trunks lying

scattered in the house of Jagabandhu.

P.W.10 N.N. Padhi, the C.I. of Police stationed at Chandbali,

took over the investigation from P.W.11 and ultimately submitted the

charge sheet against the accused persons. P.W.11, the A.S.I. of Police,

carried out the major part of the investigation.

Verdict of the Trial Court

6. After the matter was remitted vide the order passed in Criminal

Revision No. 579 of 1985, the learned trial Court undertook a fresh

appreciation of the evidence on record. It placed substantial reliance

on the testimonies of the inmates of the house P.W.1 Puspalata Misra,

P.W.2 Bijay Misra, P.W.3 Pakan Misra and P.W.7 Ajay Misra who

consistently narrated the sequence of events in detail and

unequivocally named the accused persons as the perpetrators of the

offence. The Court also drew support from the evidence of the seizure

witnesses, including P.W.4 Krushna Chandra Tiadi @ Tripathy,

P.W.6 Pagala Tripathy and P.W.9 Harekrishna Pahadi, whose

testimonies regarding the recovery of stolen articles lent corroboration

to the prosecution version. Taking into consideration the totality of

the circumstances, the detailed and specific nature of the evidence and

their categorical identification of the accused persons by the witness,

the learned trial Court proceeded to hold as under:

"25. In the result, I hold that the accused Bhaba alias Bhabagrahi Panda, Benguli alias Surendra Tripathy Balaram Panda, Kasinath Tiadi, Nakula Naik and Gayadhar Tiadi alias Tripathy are found guilty U/Ss.395 and 457 I.P.C. and convicted thereunder. As per the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the other accused persons namely Purusottam Tripathy, Ramachandra Nath, Abhimanyu Jena, Bata Krushna Jena, Prahallad Panda, Ananda Panda, Kalandi Jena, Karunakar Panda, Babaji alias Brajamohan Nayak, Rabindra Tiadi, beyond reasonable doubt and are thus acquitted of the Charges."

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned Judgement of conviction and

the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore,

the present appeal has been preferred.

Submission by the learned Counsel for the Appellants

8. Ms. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants,

submitted primarily that the conviction of the appellants is wholly

unsustainable in law and on facts. She contended, at the outset, that

the appellants had been duly acquitted of all charges by the learned

trial Court in the year 1985, and it was only pursuant to the revision

filed by the informant before this Court, wherein the matter was

remitted for fresh disposal, that the learned trial Court, in the year

1990, reversed the earlier acquittal and recorded the present

conviction. According to her, such reversal was founded on an

erroneous and impermissible re-appreciation of the evidence.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution case

stands materially weakened in view of the non-recovery of any gold

or silver ornaments, or the alleged 11,200 kilograms of paddy,

molasses, and other articles said to have been looted during the

occurrence. She argued that the absence of any independent and

disinterested witness to the incident; the inconsistencies between the

medical evidence and the ocular testimony; and the glaring

embellishments and falsehoods in the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7

cumulatively render the entire prosecution version doubtful. Ms.

Mishra also pointed out that the FIR, despite being lodged after an

unexplained delay of one full day, contains an unusually elaborate

and detailed description of events, which, in her submission, seriously

dents the credibility of the prosecution case.

9. It was next urged that the conviction of the appellants appears

to have been founded on a standard of "broad probabilities," both by

this Court in revision as well as by the learned trial Court upon

remand. She argued that such an approach is contrary to the settled

legal position that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt and that no conviction can be sustained

on mere conjectures, surmises, or preponderance of probabilities.

10. It was also submitted by Ms. Mishra that, the alleged incident

occurred in the year 1982, and the conviction was recorded in 1990.

The appellants have, therefore, been subjected to the trauma of

prolonged litigation for over 43 years, living under constant fear,

social stigma, and mental agony. She contended that this prolonged

ordeal has, in effect, served the deterrent purpose contemplated by

law, and to mandate the appellants to undergo a custodial sentence of

seven years at this distant point of time would amount to a grave

miscarriage of justice. In the above premises, learned Counsel prayed

that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of all

charges, thereby securing their release.

Submission by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State

11. On the contrary, Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing

Counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment

and submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions

Judge, after remand, is based on a thorough, independent, and

comprehensive re-evaluation of the entire evidence on record. He

contended that the findings of guilt under Sections 395 and 457 IPC

are well-reasoned, detailed, and firmly grounded in the oral,

documentary, medical, and seizure evidence adduced during trial.

12. Learned ASC submitted that the incident occurred at night in a

remote rural village, where the informant and his family members

were brutally assaulted, threatened with weapons, unlawfully

confined, and subjected to large-scale looting. In the circumstances,

the decision of the victims to avoid the direct route to the police

station and instead travel through a longer but safer path was both

natural and a consequence of the fear instilled by the accused persons

themselves. He submitted that in cases of dacoity, night-time

violence, and rural insecurity, delay in lodging the FIR is not only

expected but also considered natural by judicial precedents, and hence

such delay does not weaken the prosecution case.

13. He further submitted that the detailed narration in the FIR

cannot be construed as fabrication, particularly in a case involving

multiple intruders, violence, and extensive looting. The fact that the

FIR was drafted with the assistance of an advocate's clerk only lends

coherence to the narrative and does not diminish its credibility. The

defence sought to challenge the prosecution on the ground of delay in

lodging and forwarding the FIR; however, the learned trial Court

rightly rejected such contention after accepting the explanation of

P.W.7 that he took a longer route out of fear of encountering the

accused. Further, the defence did not cross-examine the Investigating

Officer regarding the time of dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate

and hence, no adverse inference can be drawn. Reliance was placed

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pattipati Venkaiah

v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein it has been held that mere delay

AIR 1985 SC 1715

in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate is insufficient to discard an

otherwise credible prosecution case.

14. Learned ASC submitted that the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2,

P.W.3 and P.W.7 the injured and natural eyewitnesses are clear,

consistent, and mutually corroborative. He submitted that minor

discrepancies highlighted by the defence are natural after a traumatic

event and do not detract from the core of the prosecution case, which

remains unshaken that the accused persons forcibly entered the house

at night, assaulted the victims, tied and confined them, removed

household articles and valuables, and thereafter fled.

15. He submitted that the medical evidence of P.W.5 fully supports

the prosecution version. The injuries on P.W.1 and P.W.2 were

medically verified and the timeline (24-36 hours) falls squarely

within the time of the incident. The fact that the injuries were simple

in nature does not undermine the prosecution case, as even minor

injuries are sufficient to establish violence in a charge of dacoity.

It was further submitted that multiple articles were seized during

investigation from different accused persons, and these articles were

subjected to a duly conducted Test Identification Parade by P.W.8,

the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.7 identified all the articles

without hesitation. The fact that the articles were common household

items does not vitiate the recovery, as the law does not require that

stolen property be unique in character. Identification by a single

competent witness is legally sufficient, especially when the witness is

an inmate of the house and familiar with the articles.

16. Learned ASC emphasised that the accused persons failed to

furnish any explanation regarding possession of the seized articles.

During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they offered

only evasive replies, which strengthen the inference of guilt. No

defence witnesses were examined, nor any credible alternative

narrative put forward to dislodge the prosecution case.

17. Regarding the plea of enmity, learned ASC submitted that

although prior hostility existed, it provided motive for the accused to

commit the offence rather than for the victims to falsely implicate

several co-villagers. Courts have consistently held that while evidence

in cases involving enmity requires careful scrutiny, it cannot be

rejected when it is otherwise cogent, convincing, and corroborated by

material evidence, as in the present case.

Learned ASC also highlighted the detailed and consistent testimonies

of the eyewitnesses:

 P.W.1 described the group of 25-30 armed co-villagers

forcibly entering the house, assaulting and tying her husband,

snatching ornaments, stabbing P.W.2, and removing valuables.

 P.W.2 corroborated the forcible entry, assault, stabbing,

confinement, and looting, and identified all the accused in

Court.

 P.W.3 narrated the snatching of her ornaments and sari, tying

of her father-in-law, breaking of boxes, and extensive looting

by accused who were known villagers.

 P.W.7 provided a consistent account of the unlawful entry,

assault, snatching, stabbing of Bijay, confinement, looting, and

his subsequent fear-driven decision to take an indirect route to

the police station.

Learned ASC further submitted that P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate,

conducted the Test Identification Parade strictly in accordance with

law and confirmed that P.W.7 identified the articles without any

police interference. P.W.5, the Medical Officer, fully corroborated the

injuries sustained by the victims. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer,

detailed the steps taken during investigation, including seizure of

broken doors, damaged boxes, paddy, and other material objects from

the houses of various accused persons.

18. In view of the above evidence, learned ASC submitted that the

prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 395 and 457 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned

trial Court is based on overwhelming, consistent, and credible

evidence, and the grounds urged in appeal are wholly untenable.

Accordingly, he prayed that this Court may be pleased to

uphold the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned

trial Court and dismiss the present appeal, the same being devoid of

merit.

Observations

19. At the outset, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge, after

remand, undertook a fresh and independent appraisal of the entire

evidentiary matrix and recorded detailed findings based on the

testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses, seizure witnesses, medical

evidence, recovery of articles, and the Test Identification Parade

conducted by the Judicial Magistrate. The findings are not derivative

but are founded squarely on the substantive evidence on record.

20. The testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.7 all victims

and natural witnesses stand out for their clarity, consistency, and

corroborative value. Each of these witnesses has narrated the

sequence of events in substantial detail, identified the appellants as

members of the armed group that forcibly entered the house, assaulted

the inmates, tied and confined them, and removed valuables and

household articles. Their presence at the spot is natural and

undisputed, and their evidence remained firm even after lengthy

cross-examination. Minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence

are superficial, do not touch the substratum of the prosecution case,

and are rather reflective of natural variations expected from

traumatized witnesses recounting a violent night-time attack.

21. The medical evidence furnished by P.W.5 corroborates the

injuries sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and supports the prosecution

version of assault. The estimated age of the injuries falls well within

the timeframe of the incident. The argument that the injuries were

simple in nature does not in any manner dilute the prosecution case,

as even minimal injuries suffice to prove the use of force and violence

in an offence of dacoity.

22. The prosecution case receives further corroboration from the

seizure of various articles recovered from the houses of multiple

accused persons during investigation. The Test Identification Parade

conducted by P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate was carried out in

accordance with established procedure, and P.W.7 correctly identified

the articles belonging to the household. The contention that the

articles were common household items or that identification by a

single witness is inadequate is untenable in law. It is well settled that

familiarity of a householder with his own property is a sufficient basis

for identification.

23. The appellants have not furnished any plausible explanation for

the possession of the seized items. Their evasive answers under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. add strength to the prosecution case. The absence

of defence witnesses also weakens the appellants' challenge to the

prosecution version.

24. As regards the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR, this

Court finds that the explanation provided by P.W.7 is both natural and

convincing. Fear of encountering the accused on the direct route and

the decision to take a longer pathway in the dead of night constitute

sufficient justification. Moreover, no question was put to the

Investigating Officer on this aspect; no adverse inference can

therefore be drawn. The settled legal position, as reaffirmed in

Pattipati Venkaiah (supra), is that mere delay, when satisfactorily

explained, cannot by itself erode the credibility of the prosecution.

25. The core plea of false implication on account of prior enmity is

equally unconvincing. While the existence of enmity is admitted, it

furnishes a possible motive for the accused to commit the offence

rather than for the victims to falsely implicate several co-villagers in a

grave charge of dacoity. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses

has been scrutinized carefully with due caution and found to be

cogent, credible, and corroborated on all material particulars.

Conclusion

26. On an overall conspectus, this Court finds no material

infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the approach or findings of the

learned trial Court. The prosecution has proved the charges under

Sections 395 and 457 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and the defence

has not been able to create even a shadow of uncertainty sufficient to

dislodge the conviction.

27. Having considered the rival submissions and upon a meticulous

re-examination of the entire evidence and materials available on

record, this Court is of the view that the appellants have failed to

make out any ground warranting interference with the well-reasoned

judgment of the learned trial Court. In view of that, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit.

28. Learned Counsel for the appellants at this point makes an

additional submission that the appellant nos. 2 and 3 have already

expired during the pendency of the proceedings, and the remaining

appellants are now of significantly at advanced age. Appellant no. 4 is

presently about 88 years old, and appellant no. 5, who was only 18

years of age at the time of the incident, is now approximately 61 years

old. It was urged that all surviving appellants suffer from age-related

physical infirmities, and that subjecting them to a sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for seven years at this stage of their lives would be

unproductive, medically burdensome, and contrary to the principles of

reformative and humane sentencing.

It was further submitted that having regard to the compelling

mitigating circumstances, including the age of the appellants, their

prolonged exposure to litigation for over four decades, and their

unblemished conduct during this entire period, this Court, in exercise

of its appellate jurisdiction, is fully empowered to modify, reduce, or

suitably alter the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial

Court.

29. In light of the aforesaid submissions advanced on the question

of sentence, and upon due consideration of the advanced age of the

surviving appellants, their prolonged exposure to the rigours of the

criminal process for over four decades, as well as the mitigating

circumstances placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to

interfere with the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, while upholding

the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under

Section 395 of the I.P.C., the substantive sentence of rigorous

imprisonment is reduced to a period of one year. No separate sentence

is awarded for the offence under Section 457 of the I.P.C. The period

of sentence already undergone by the appellants shall be set off in

terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

However, in order to balance the ends of justice, the appellants

are directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each

within a period of three months, which shall be disbursed to the

victims or their legal representatives in accordance with Section 357

Cr.P.C. It is made clear that in the event of default in payment of the

fine, the consideration extended by this Court for reduction of the

substantive sentence shall stand withdrawn, and the appellants shall

be liable to undergo the sentence as originally awarded by the learned

Trial Court.

The convict-appellants shall appear before the learned Trial

Court within one month from today to serve the remainder of the

modified sentence, failing such appearance, they may be taken into

custody in accordance with law.

30. In the result, the appeal, insofar as it challenges the conviction,

stands dismissed. The appeal is, however, conditionally allowed to the

limited extent of modification/reduction of the sentence as indicated

above.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 9th Day of December, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.