Orissa High Court
Hrudananda Pradhan And Others vs State Of Odisha on 31 July, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.437 of 2009
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Hrudananda Pradhan and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 25.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal filed by the appellants
under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and
order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 83/20 of 2005, whereby the learned trial
court while acquitting all the six appellants for the offence under
Sections 294/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST
(PoA) Act, convicted them for the offences under Sections 341/324/34 of
I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each
for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and S.I. for ten days each for the
offence under Section 341 I.P.C. All sentences were directed to be run
concurrently. The learned trial Court also acquitted the co-accused,
namely, Tarun Pradhan from all the charges as he was not found guilty
of the offences under Sections 341/324/294/307/34 of I.P.C. read with
Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act.
2. Heard Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.06.2004 at about 5:00
PM, while the informant Khetramohan Meher (P.W.5) was standing near
Pandaloi Bus Stand, his younger brother Gopiram Meher (P.W.1) arrived
at the location on a motorcycle. Suddenly, several accused persons
including the present appellants allegedly assaulted Gopiram with deadly
weapons such as a sword, crowbar, and wooden sticks (thenga), causing
him to fall down. Seeing this, when the informant tried to save his
brother, he too was assaulted by the accused persons. Both P.W.1 and
P.W.5 were allegedly abused in filthy language containing caste slurs.
On the intervention of local people, the situation was brought under
control and the injured were admitted to V.S.S. Medical College &
Hospital, Burla for treatment.
4. On receipt of the written report (F.I.R.), the police registered a
case under Sections 341/324/294/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section
3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA.) Act. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed against the appellants and they were put to trial, as
they took a stand of denial and claim trial.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as
many as eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the injured and P.W.5
was the informant and injured witness. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 P.W.8 were
co-villagers, who turned hostile. P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer of
this case. No witnesses were examined from the defence side. Certain
documents including the F.I.R. and seizure of bed-head tickets were
exhibited.
6. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record,
disbelieved the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 I.P.C. as
well as charges under Sections 294/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC & ST (PoA.) Act, and acquitted the accused of those charges.
However, it accepted the version of P.Ws.1 and 5 and convicted all the
appellants (except Tarun Pradhan) under Sections 341 and 324 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. The learned trial Court after analysing the entire
evidence on record has arrived at the following findings-
"15. For the offence u/s 307, IPC, the intention to
cause death is vital and acquires a dominant place
over other requirements. Intention may be proved or
disproved by the circumstances. Further, the intention
or knowledge of the accused must be such as is
necessary to constitute murder. The mens rea in
committing the specific act by the accused persons
must be established before proving the charge u/s
307, IPC. But, from the circumstances of the present
case, the intention of the accused persons, to cause
death either of the injured persons is not established
as neither P.W.1 nor P.W.5 has stated so in their
evidence and nothing from their evidences comes out
to prove such intention or knowledge of the accused
persons. So I am constrained to hold that the accused
persons have no intention or knowledge to cause
death of either of the injured persons. Hence, in my
considered opinion, the prosecution has not
established the charge u/s 307. IPC.
16. It appears from the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 5 that
while P.W.1 was coming in his motor cycle, all of a
sudden the accused persons assaulted him for which,
he fell down from the motor cycle. This evidence of
P.Ws.1 & 5 also gets support from the F.I.R. story.
The place of occurrence, which is a bus-stand, is a
public place and, thus, P.W.1 has right to pass and by
the assault of the accused persons, P.W.1 was
obstructed from proceeding and, therefore, the
accused persons have voluntarily obstructed P.W.1 so
as to prevent him from proceeding which he has a
right to proceed. As such, I come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has established the charge
against the accused persons except accused Tarun
Pradhan u/s 341/34, IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt.
17. The F.I.R. story reveals the specific abusive words
hurled by the accused persons. To this extent, P.W.1
has stated the specific abusive words and, also, P.W.5
stated the specific abusive words. Those specific
abusive words as stated by P.Ws.1 & 5 and the F.I.R.
story reveal filthy languages and remark aspersing
the caste of the injured persons. The place of
occurrence is a bus-stand which is, no doubt, a public
place. But both P.W.1 & 5 have not stated anything
that due to the hurling of such abusive words by the
accused persons, any other person was annoyed.
P.W.1 and P.W.5 have also not stated anything that
due to hurling of such abusive words any other
person present at the spot were annoyed. Therefore,
the offence u/s 294, IPC is not established against the
accused persons.
18. Similarly, nothing has been brought in evidence
by the prosecution that the accused persons
intentionally insults or intimidates the injured persons
with intent to humiliate them as a member of
scheduled caste. Further, it appears from Ext.3 that
accused Ajambila Dansena belongs to the scheduled
caste community. This fortifies the absence of
intention of the accused persons to humiliate a
member of scheduled caste community. Therefore, I
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not
established the charge u/s 3 (1) (x) of the S.C. & S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. Taking into account the specific participation of
each of the accused persons in committing the offence
and in the manner it is perpetrated, it is established
that, there is a meeting of minds between all the
accused persons to commit the offence.
20. From the aforesaid discussions I come to the
conclusion that accused Tarun Pradhan is not held
guilty U/Ss.341/324/294/307/34, IPC and Sec.3 (1)
(x), S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and the other accused
persons are not held guilty for the offences
U/Ss.294/307/34, IPC and Sec.3 (1) (x) of the S.C. &
S.T. (P.A.) Act, and they are acquitted from those
offences accordingly.
21. All the accused persons except accused Tarun
Pradhan are held guilty for the offences
U/Ss.341/324/34, I.P.C. and are convicted
thereunder."
7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned findings recorded by the trial
court, which lead to the recording of conviction against the appellants for
the offences punishable under sections 341/324/34 IPC, the appellants
are aggrieved; hence they have preferred the present appeal.
8. In order to appreciate the findings recorded by the trial court, as
has been reproduced above, I have carefully gone through the materials
available on record, particularly the evidence of the witnesses. In the
present case, although eight witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution, but all the independent witnesses, like P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7
have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The
prosecution case, therefore, hinges upon only on the oral testimony of
P.W.1, the alleged injured and P.W.5, the informant of the case, who is
the brother of the injured. P.W.1 in his testimony has deposed as under;-
"I know all the accused persons of this case. I am
Kantia (Harijan) by caste. The accused persons
belong to general caste. The occurrence took place on
16.06.2004 at about 5 P.M. on a Wednesday. It took
place at Panduloi bus stop. I was coming towards bus
stand in my motor cycle. All on a sudden accused
Hrudananda Pradhan came and assaulted to the back
of my head by means of sword. Accused Pramod
Pradhan assaulted to my back by means of crow-bar
(sabala), accused Rameswar Patra dealt thenga
blows to my back, accused Nilanchal Pradha, Khirod
Rout, Ajambila Dansena all assaulted by means of
thenga on me. Due to assault I fell down. On
intervention of my elder brother Khetramohan Meher
he was also assaulted by the accused persons. At the
time of intervention by my brother, accused
Hrudananda Pradhan rebuked us saying "MAGIHA
CHAMAR, GHASIA" and gave threat to cut me into
pieces. I sustained bleeding injury on my back and
back side of head. I was taken to V.S.S. medical
college hospital, Burla for treatment and I was
admitted as an in-door patient for a period of two
days. Police seized two bed-head tickets belonging to
myself and my brother on my production."
P.W.1 was subjected to elaborate cross examination by the
defence, but nothing could be elucidated from him to doubt his
testimony. His version also stood corroborated with the narration of
incident in the FIR, which has been exhibited as Ext.1.
9. P.W.5, the informant in the present case in paragraph-2 of his
testimony has stated as under:-
"The occurrence took place on 16.06.2004 at
about the evening. At that time I was standing in the
hotel of one Purna Chandra Naik situating at
Pandoloi Chhak. At that time my brother Gopiram
Meher was coming on motor cycle on that way. At
that time Hrudananda Pradhan, Nilanchal Pradhan,
Pramod Pradhan and Khirod Rout have concealed
themselves at the spot and all of a sudden, Nilanchala
by means of a crow-bar assaulted on my brother,
Gopiram on his back as a result of which Gopiram
fell down from the motor cycle. At that time accused
Hrudananda was holding a sword, Khirod and
Pramod were holding two Adas (thick wooden sticks).
Then all the aforesaid persons assaulted on Gopiram
saying "MAAGHIA CHHOTA JATI GHASIA
MAGIHA AMANARE MICHHA CHORI KESA
KARICHHU". Seeing the occurrence I rushed to the
spot to save Gopiram but the accused persons also
assaulted me saying "MAAGIHA GHASIA CHHOTA
JATI TO MARI MARI KARI MARIDEBUTHANE". At
that time Ajambila Dansena and others were standing
at the spot. then the local people present there had
intervened and rescued us and we then moved to the
hospital at Rengali, which referred us to Burla, V.S.S.
Medical College and Hospital, Burla. Leaving
Rengali hospital we went to Rengali Out Post and
then proceeded to Burla. I described the occurrence
before the police, who reduced the same into writing
and after going through the same I signed thereon.
Ext.1 is the said written report and Ext.1/1 is my
signature thereon. I was examined by the police
during investigation."
This witness was also subjected to elaborate cross examination by
the prosecution, but to no advantage for the appellants. Barring the
testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5, no other witnesses have supported the
prosecution version, even the so called eye witnesses have also wriggled
out of their version.
10. P.W.7, who was one of the independent witness, on the contrary,
has stated that the accused persons had prior dispute with the informant
regarding fishing and theft of fish from the village pond. At the time of
occurrence he was not present, however, he reached subsequently and
came to know that the accused group had some quarrel with the
informant's group in the bus stand. The testimony of P.W.7 and other
evidence brings to the conclusion that there was a prior enmity between
both the groups. It also appears from the conjoint reading of all the
evidence that both the groups had a quarrel, as a result of which, P.W.1
got injured. However, which group is the aggressor is not conclusively
coming to the fore from the evidence. Interestingly, in the present case
the prosecution has not examined the doctor, who has medically
examined the victim. In that regard, the I.O. of the case, i.e., P.W.8 in his
examination-in-chief in paragraph-3 has stated as under;-
"I sent the injured victims for medical
examination to the local hospital and subsequently
they were referred to the V.S.S. Medical College and
Hospital, Burla. In spite of several efforts made by me
to obtain the injury report, I could not be able to
obtain the injury from Bula hospital. Ultimately I sent
S.I. M. R. Garnaik of Rengali O.P. to obtain the
copies of the bed head tickets in respect of both the
injured persons namely Khetramohan and Gopiram.
Accordingly, he brought the xerox copy of the bed
head tickets which were seized by me on 30.06.2004
by preparing the seizure list. Ext.4 is the said seizure
list and Ext.4/1 is my signature thereon."
11. From the reading of the evidence of P.W.8 and Ext.4, it cannot be
conclusively held as to whether the injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous
or simple. Taking into account the entire conspectus of the evidence, as
discussed above, I am of the view that the trial court findings in the
impugned judgment recording the guilt of the appellants for offence
under sections 341/324 IPC is clearly not made out. However, the fact
that P.W.1 got injured cannot be denied because the testimony of P.W.1
not only stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.5 but also with
the document like Ext.1, the F.I.R. and Ext.4, the bed-head tickets from
the hospital etc.
12. In view of the nature of evidence, I am of the view that the
appellants are liable to be convicted for offence under section 323 IPC
alone. Accordingly, the judgment under challenge stood modified and
the appellants are convicted for offence under section 323 IPC instead of
the offence under sections 341/324 of IPC. On the count of the
conviction under section 323 of IPC, the sentence imposed by the trial
court is accordingly liable to be modified. At this stage, Ms. Agnishikha
Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
appellants have already undergone custody of two months during the
trial period. She also submitted that all the appellants were either in their
late twenties or early thirties at the time of incident, i.e., in the year 2004.
Therefore, at present they are at their early fifties or late fifties and they
have already undergone the rigors of the trial for such a long time and
the appeal has been pending since 2009. Therefore, at this stage sending
them to undergo further sentence to be imposed by this Court would be
harsh. Hence she submits that the appellants may be granted the benefit
of Probation of Offenders Act.
13. Having considered the entire features of the case, I could have
dealt with the appellants under the Probation of Offenders Act. It has,
however, been brought to my notice by Ms. Roy, learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants have already undergone about two months
custody, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the
State. Therefore, injustice would be compounded if I would now grant
the appellants the treatment under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Therefore, while convicting the appellants for the offence under Section
323 IPC, I reduce the sentence to the period the appellants have already
undergone. The appeal is accordingly allowed to that extent.
14. The CRLA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 31st July, 2025/ Swarna
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
