[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Uday Pradhan And Others vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 2025

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       CRA No.438 of 1994

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

Uday Pradhan and others               .......                Appellants

                                 -Versus-

State of Orissa                   .......                 Respondent

For the Appellants : Ms. Chetna Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Siva Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR

MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025

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

the judgment and order dated 30th of November, 1994 passed by the

learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, in S.T. Case No. 12/271

of 1997, whereby the accused-appellants No.1 and 3 (hereinafter A1

and A3 respectively for brevity) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and accused-

appellant No.2(hereinafter A2 for brevity) has been convicted for the

offence U/s.324 I.P.C. A1 and A3 have been sentenced to undergo a

R.I. for 3 months for offence U/s.323 of I.P.C., whereas A2 has been

sentenced for six months for the offence U/s.324 of I.P.C.

2. Heard Ms. Chetna Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellants

and Mrs. Siva Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State.

3. In the present case, the criminal law was set into motion upon

the lodging of the First Information Report on 20.01.1991 at Sarankul

Police Station. It is pertinent to note that, at the time when the learned

Trial Court rendered the judgment of conviction, a total of six accused

persons had faced trial, of whom three were acquitted of all charges.

At that stage, two other accused persons, namely Kalia Mantri and

Ula @ Pabitra Pal, were absconding. Consequently, their cases were

segregated from the main trial, which has culminated to the impugned

order in the present appeal before this Court.

The informant, Bichi Bisoi (P.W.2), along with the injured

persons and the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan, are residents of

village Dhusuma, whereas the accused persons belong to the

adjoining village Sikharpur. According to the prosecution, on

20.01.1991, at about 9:00 A.M., the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan,

accompanied by Dinabandhu Bisoi (P.W.4), Bhikari Jena (P.W.6),

Surendra Behera (P.W.5), Kumar Bisoi (P.W.7), Udaya Swain, and

Syam Behera, had proceeded to the lands situated near the Duanta

river within the village of the accused persons for the purpose of

collecting green grass. While they were collecting grass from the

cultivated land of one Jogi Jena, the present accused persons, along

with the absconding accused, allegedly arrived at the spot armed with

deadly weapons such as lathis, bhali, farsa, bhusa, and other

implements. They questioned the presence of the victims on the land

and, upon protest, assaulted the deceased as well as the injured

witnesses, causing them to fall to the ground with bleeding injuries.

On witnessing the assault, the remaining companions fled the scene to

alert the villagers of Dhusuma.

Upon being informed, the informant, father of the injured

Dinabandhu rushed to the spot along with several villagers. Manu

Jena (P.W.3), who was then engaged in operating a sugarcane crusher

situated on the outskirts of village Dhusuma, also proceeded to the

location. By the time they reached, they found the deceased Rama

Chandra Bhuyan and injured Dinabandhu lying senseless in the field,

bearing multiple injuries, while the injured Bhikari remained partially

conscious. The injured persons were initially shifted to a nearby

mango grove where a sugarcane crusher was functioning, and

thereafter transported on cots arranged by the villagers to the Sarankul

Hospital.

The Medical Officer at Sarankul Hospital admitted Dinabandhu

(P.W.4) and Bhikari (P.W.6) for treatment and referred the deceased

to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, owing to his

critical condition. At about 8:30 P.M. on the same day, the informant

(P.W.2) appeared at Sarankul Police Station and submitted a written

report, on the basis of which the Officer-in-Charge registered the

present case and took up investigation. A V.H.F. message was

transmitted to the I.I.C., Mangalabag Police Station, as the deceased

had been referred there for medical treatment. Upon receiving

information about the death of Rama Chandra Bhuyan at the S.C.B.

Medical College and Hospital, the Investigating Officer deputed a

constable to Mangalabag P.S. for collection of the inquest report,

post-mortem report, and other relevant documents pertaining to the

U.D. Case registered on the basis of the casualty memo.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

visited the places of occurrence the site of the assault as well as the

mango grove where the injured were initially taken and collected

blood-stained earth and sample earth. Several witnesses were

examined. On 31.01.1991, he seized the blood-stained clothes of the

injured Dinabandhu and Bhikari, produced at the police station by the

informant. On the same day, the wearing apparel of the deceased was

seized on production by Surendra Behera. Thereafter, on 22.04.1991,

all seized articles, including the blood-stained and control earth

samples, were forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory,

Rasulgarh, for chemical examination. Upon completion of the

investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons

as well as their absconding associates.

4. The defence of the appellants was one of complete denial and

allegation of false implication. Upon the framing of charges, the

appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, out of

which P.W. 1 was a witness to the seizure of blood stained clothes,

P.W.2 was the informant who having got information had rushed to

the spot and had removed the deceased and injured person to hospital,

P.W.2 is another independent witness who had equally rushed to the

spot on getting the information. P.Ws.4 and 6 were the injured

persons and P.W.5 was one of their associates who had witnessed the

occurrence. P.W.7 is another witness who had also gone to the spot

for collection of green grass along with the deceased and other injured

persons. P.W.8 was another villager who had accompanied the

deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan to S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack

and in whose presence the inquest was held by the police at

Mangalabag P.S. P.W.9 was the Assistant Professor of S.C.B.

Medical who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased. P.W.10 was the A.S.I. of Police who conducted inquest and

sent the dead body for P.M. Examination. P.W.11 was the Medical

Officer of Sarankul Hospital who had admitted the injured

Dinabandhu and Bhikari into the hospital and had submitted the

injury report on police requisition and P.W.12 was the I.O. of the

case.

6. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record,

the material objects, gave the following findings:

14. As discussed earlier all the occular witnesses namely P.Ws 4,5,6 & 7 have categorically stated that all the accused persons together with the absconding accused Kalia Mantri and Ula Pal had approached the spot with deadly weapons. As regards the part played by the accused persons Dinabandhu Bisoi P.W.4 on of the injured has stated that on reaching the spot absconding accused Kalia Mantri assaulted the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan by Farsa over his head and when he reached near the deceased son used Chhabi Pradhan assaulted him by means of Farsa for which he sustained injuries on both of his palms. The witness further stated that when he fell down, said accused Chhabi again gave a farsa blow on his head and at that time the absconding accused Ula Pal assaulted on his back by means of a bhusa. He further says that due to the above injuries he fell down and lost his sense. P.W.5 who at the relevant time was with P.W.4 has also deposed in confirmity with the evidence of P.W.4 that the absconding accused Kalia Mantri had given a farsa blow on the back side head of deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan along with other absconding accused Ula Pal. He further says that when Dinabandhu, P.W.4 came to the rescue of the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan he was assaulted by accused Chhabi Pradhan by means of a Farsa and while warding off the blow P.W.4 had sustained injuries on his hands.

It is also his further evidence that when the said accused gave the second blow on the head of P.W.4, the latter fell down. The witness further says that when he tried to run away on seeing the assault on deceased Rama Ch. Bhuyan and P.W.4, he was assaulted by accused Biswanath Pradhan by means of lathi over his leg. P.W.6, Bhikari Jena the other injured has stated in confirmity with the evidence of P.Ws.4 & 5 that the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan was assaulted by Kalia Mantri as well as by accused Nalu Pradhan. His further evidence is that he was assaulted by accused Daya Pradhan over his head, left shoulder, left hand and left leg one after the other by means of lathi and therefore out of fear when he tried to fled away he was again

assaulted by Udaya Pradhan for which he fell down and ultimately lost his sense. As it seems the above statement of the witnesses are found to be in confirmity with their earlier statement made before the police except the part of the evidence of P.W.6 in regard to the assault given by accused Nalu Pradhan to deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan. Since the said witness is found to have not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement about such assault of Nalu Pradhan and neither P.W.4 nor P.W.5 had uttered about the role of Nalu Pradhan, it cannot be said free from doubt that the said accused Nalu Pradhan had taken any role in assaulting the deceased and the injured persons. Therefore to this extent accused Nalu Pradhan can not also be convicted under any of the charges levelled against him. Similarly when some of the witnesses have deposed about the assault of accused Udaya Pradhan, and Chhabi Pradhan to the deceased, these accused persons cannot also be held guilty for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

15. In so far as the other assault is concerned, the evidence of P.W.4 & 5 is found to be in confirmity to the extent that Chhabi Pradhan had assaulted by means of Farsa to Dinabandhu P.W.4. The evidence of these witnesses further shows that besides accused Chhabi, the absconding accused Ula Pal also participated in assaulting P.W.4 by means of a Bhusa over the back of P.W.4. The doctor P.W.11 who had examined the said injured Dinabandhu P.W.4 has stated to have found one incised wound of 1½" x½ " x¼" on the fore head extending upward from his left eye brow. There was also another incised wound of 3" x¼ "x¼" on the left palm situated obliquely, and another incised wound of 2 ¼" x 1" on the medial aspect of right wrist 1" below the wrist. The doctor has further opined to have noticed one punctured wound ½" x 4" x 1" on the upper boarder of right scafula besides a swelling on the occipital region. There was also a lacerated wound on the right side of scapula. Thus from the evidence of doctor it is crystal clear that P.W.4 had sustained incised wound over his both the palms and forehead. When P.Ws.4 & 5 categorically stated that these injuries were inflicted by accused Chhabi Pradhan, I find sufficient justification to hold the said accused guilty u/s 324 I.P.C. the same having been caused by means of a farsa.

16. Similarly as regards the injuries sustained by Bhikari Jena P.W.6, the doctor P.W.11 has stated to have noticed one bruise of 2½" x 1" of the middle 1/3rd of left forearm, another bruise of 1" x ½" below the occiput. There was also a swelling of

3"x1"x½" on the left cheek besides there being a bruise with surface abrasion of 1" x½" below the left knee laterally. The evidence of the injured P.W.6 shown that he was assaulted by accused Udaya Pradhan over his head, left shoulder, left hand one after the other by means of a lathi. Since according to the doctor the injuries sustained by P.W.6 can be caused by hard and blunt weapon it can safely be deduced that the said injuries were caused by accused Daya Pradhan, as claimed by the injured P.W.6 himself. Ofcourse to support the aforesaid evidence of the injured P.W.6 there is no other corroborating evidence. But since the record shows that P.W.4 had lost his sense soon after receiving the blows and as P.W.5 states to have fled away from the spot after being assaulted by accused Biswonath, it is very natural for them not to see the assault on P.W.6 when they were standing away from each other at the time of incident. Therefore, in such circumstances, no corroborative piece of evidence can be expected to support the evidence of the injured P.W.4 when all the occular withesses were attacked by different accused persons at different places. Therefore relying on the solitary evidence of P.W.5 Bhikari Jena I hold with reference to the injuries on his persons that accused Udaya Pradhan had assaulted him by means of a lathi and therefore the said accused is found guilty u/s 323 I.P.C. the injuries being simple in nature.

17. As regards the part played by accused Biswonath Pradhan, except P.W.5 no other witnesses have deposed about his role. It be mentioned here that from the evidence of the occular witnesses it is crystal clear that at the time of assault they were not together but they were standing apart from the other. It is also crystal clear from the discussion made above that in the incident the other associates of P.W.5 namely P.Ws.4 & 6 were assaulted by some other accused persons and therefore in such circumstances it is difficult to seek for corroboration from their witnesses in so far as the assault made to P.W.5. Ofcourse this P.W.5 has not been examined medically but however when sufficient negligence on the part of the I.O. has been pointed out, no serious view of the non-examination of the said witness by a medical officer can not be taken into account. In his evidence P.W.5 has deposed that when he was running away on seeing the assault on P.Ws.4 & 6 he was attacked by accused Biswonath by means of a lathi over his leg. According to him due to the said assault he had sustained a swelling injury on his leg and the same had lasted for about 3 to 4 days. The evidence of I.O. P.W.12 shows that the said witness was examined by him about 5 days after the occurrence i.e. on 25.1.91 when the swelling would

have been vanished and therefore the non-examination of the said P.W.5 by a doctor can not be fatal to the prosecution when the I.O. himself is found to be not fair in his investigation. In such circumstances, I belive that P.W.5 was assaulted by accused Biswonath Pradhan and therefore the said accused is found guilty u/s 323 I.P.C.

7. The appellants aggrieved by the aforementioned findings

which led to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have

filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Chetna Prakash, has

contended that the prosecution case suffers from material infirmities.

It is urged that the alleged weapon of offence was never seized, and

although a large number of persons were purportedly involved in the

incident, no Test Identification Parade was conducted to establish that

the present appellants were the assailants. In the absence of such

identification, it is submitted, there remains no substantive basis to

implicate the appellants.

Learned counsel has further pointed out that no independent

witness was examined during trial. As per the testimony of P.W.4, a

lady was present at the place of occurrence, who could have served

as the most reliable independent witness; however, she was never

brought on record.

It is further contended that the testimonies of P.W.4 and P.W.6

remain substantially uncorroborated, and, when considered

cumulatively with the aforementioned deficiencies, the prosecution

case becomes doubtful, entitling the appellants to the benefit of such

doubt.

Learned counsel has also addressed the evidence as it pertains

to each of the three appellants individually. It is submitted that, upon

close scrutiny, nothing substantial survives against A3 to sustain his

conviction.

Without prejudice to the above submissions on merits, learned

counsel has further submitted that the incident pertains to the year

1991 and that the appellants, who were aged about 45, 21 and 30

years at the time of occurrence, are now in the evening of their lives.

It is pointed out that A1 and A3 have already undergone the period of

sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, and that A2, who has

been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, has already undergone

approximately four months custody. In these circumstances, and

considering the prolonged ordeal of trial faced by the appellants,

learned counsel submitted that if this Court does not consider it

appropriate, at this belated stage, to re-examine the matter on merits,

the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already

undergone.

9. Although at the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellants

conceded to the conviction of the appellants and has submitted that

A1 and A3 have already served out the entire sentence and that A2

has yet to serve out remaining two months from the period of awarded

sentence, but cursory reading of the evidence clicks the issue

regarding the complicity of A3 in commission of the crime.

Therefore, this Court while embarking upon the journey to the

conclusion of the proceeding, felt it appropriate to appreciate the

evidence vis-à-vis A3.

10. The sole allegation against A3 emanates from the testimony of

P.W.5, who has deposed as follows:

"Seeing this I tried to run away, but I was assaulted by accused Bisia by means of a lathi on my left leg. After receiving the blow I ran to my village and informed the villagers."

However, the above statement of the injured witness is neither

corroborated by any other prosecution witness nor supported by any

medical examination report of the alleged injury. It further emerges

from the record that no Test Identification Parade was conducted for

identifying the assailants. In these circumstances, it would be

appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt to A3.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, A3 is acquitted of the

charge under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Insofar as the remaining

appellants are concerned, their conviction stands affirmed. As

regards A1, he has already undergone the entire sentence awarded to

him and nothing further survives. With respect to A2, although he is

yet to undergo the remaining sentence of two months, considering his