Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Benudhar Bhoi And Another .... Opp. ... on 12 May, 2025
Bench: B. P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 15-May-2025 17:16:19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.154 of 2015
State of Odisha .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, A.S.C.
-versus-
Benudhar Bhoi and Another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Brajakishore Panda, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
12.5.2025
Order No.
09. 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, learned ASC for the State -
Petitioner and Mr. B.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite
Parties.
2. The State has sought for leave to appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 31st July, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Nuapada for alleged commission of offence by the
Opp.Parties under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.
3. Both the Opposite Parties were accused persons. According
to the allegation made by prosecution, on the relevant day the
deceased namely Kusa Bhoi came to the house of Opposite Party
No.1 Benudhar Bhoi and quarreled with him while he was eating
rice. As the deceased spat on the rice pot of Benudhar there
ensued a quarrel. The other accused namely Dambudha Bhoi too
joined them. It is the further allegations that both the accused
persons assaulted the deceased by means of lathi and rafa
(Spade). The deceased sustained multiple injuries on his person
and died on the next day in the hospital while on treatment.
Designation: Personal Assistant
4. The admitted case of the prosecution as surfaced from the
statement of witnesses is that both the accused persons and the
deceased were brothers and initially an U.D. case was registered
which was later converted to a cognizable case under section
302/34 of I.P.C.
5. Though the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses but most
of them have turned hostile and did not support prosecution
version. P.W.4 is the only witness who stated to be present in the
scene of occurrence saw the accused persons assaulting the
deceased. As per his evidence, seeing the quarrel between the
accused persons and deceased he intervened and separated them.
It is stated by P.W.4 that the occurrence took place on the road
side of their village.
6. The cause of death is admittedly homicidal in nature as
opined by the doctor conducting the post mortem examination
(P.W.24). According to him the nature of injuries are
corresponding to the nature of weapons allegedly used by the
accused persons. Finding the evidence of the P.W.4 prevaricating,
the learned trial court has not placed reliance on the evidence of
P.W.4 to convict the accused persons.
7. We went through the evidence of all such witnesses as
produced by learned ASC in course of hearing. Looking into the
evidence we found that most of the independent witnesses while
admitting the factum of death of the deceased have turned hostile
and denied to have their knowledge about the cause of death or
that the Opposite Parties to be its author. According to some of
the prosecution witnesses the deceased died by fall from cycle.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Undoubtedly an U.D. case was initially registered with regard to
death of the deceased. Having gone through the evidence of
P.W.4 read with the evidence of the investigating officer
(P.W.25) we too find the evidence of P.W. 4 to be not of
credence. While the factum of his presence is stated by this
witness during his evidence, found not stated before the I.O in his
statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also denied to have seen
the place where the accused persons hit the blows putting his very
presence at the scene of occurrence in cloud. Therefore, we do
not find anything to differ from the opinion of learned trial Judge.
P.W.4's presence at the spot being by chance and the prosecution
having failed to explain the same and absence of details of
narration about the assault, we found nothing contrary in the
finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge. Keeping in view the
available evidences brought on record, the surrounding facts of
the case including registration of U.D. case initially, we do not
see any prima facie case in favour of the prosecution to grant the
leave. The same is accordingly refused.
8. In the result the CRLLP is dismissed.
9. The copies of evidences as produced by Mr. Khandayatray,
learned ASC are kept on record.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
M.K.Panda
