Krutibas Giri & Another vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 9468 Ori

Orissa High Court

Krutibas Giri & Another vs State Of Orissa on 28 October, 2025

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRA No.66 of 2000
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

Krutibas Giri & another        .......                   Appellants

                                -Versus-

State of Orissa                .......                   Respondent

For the Appellants : Ms. Bidisha Sahu, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed conjointly

by Krutibas Giri and Basudev Murmu assailing the judgment of

conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2000 passed by the

learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur,

District- Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.313 of 1997 (T.C. No.6/1998)

convicting the appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities

Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default, to undergo

R.I. for a further period of 15 days (fifteen days) each.

2. Consistently none has appeared for the appellants. When the

matter was taken up on 08.07.2025 and 15.07.2025, it was indicated in

the order that, if none appears for the appellants on the next date of

listing, Amicus Curiae will be appointed to assist the Court in the matter.

Accordingly, when the matter was taken up on 24.07.2025, again none

had appeared for the appellants. Hence, Ms. Bidisha Sahu, Advocate has

been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

3. Heard Ms. Bidisha Sahu, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the

appellants and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel

appearing for the Respondent-State.

4. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant no.2-Basudev

Murmu has reported to have expired. Therefore, in absence of any

application under Section 394 of the Cr. P.C. by either the legal heirs of

the deceased appellant no.2 or his next friend, the appeal stood abated

vide order dated 15.07.2025 qua appellant no.2- Basudev Murmu.

Hence, the present appeal is confined to the appellant no.1-Krutibas Giri

only.

5. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that, there was a

provision of distribution of the BPL rice in the Grama Panchayat Office

at Rairangpur. The cost of the rice per kilogram was Rs.2/-. On

14.08.1997, at about midnight, the deceased appellant no.2 was carrying

40 to 42 kgs. of BPL rice and going away from the Panchayat Office

allegedly stealing the rice. On the way, he was caught by some villagers

and detained till the next morning. The police was informed. The

deceased appellant no.2 disclosed to the villagers that he was taking the

rice in connivance with the appellant no.1, who was the Secretary of the

Grama Panchayat. On this information, the case was registered on the

allegation of illegal transportation of 45 kgs. of rice.

6. The defence took a stance of complete denial and stated that the

case has been falsely foisted on them with an ulterior motive and the

stock remains intact.

7. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to bring home the

charge. P.W.1 was the informant in the present case. P.W.2 was present

at the time of the occurrence whereas, P.W.3 was examined as post-

occurrence witness. P.W.4 is the son of the present appellant, who stated

to have handed over the key of the Panchayat Office go-down to the

Sub-Collector. P.W.5 was the witness, who has opened the go-down in

presence of the Sub-Collector and recovered Q.3.56 kgs. and 250 grams

of rice and prepared the seizure list vide Ext.3. P.W.7 was the ACSO,

who has deposed that the villagers have detained the deceased appellant

no.2 and recovered 40 to 45 kgs. of rice. He has also deposed that the

appellant no.2 confessed that he was carrying the rice at the instance of

the Secretary of the Panchayat Office, i.e., the present appellant no.1.

P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer.

8. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on

record, arrived at the following findings:

"7. P.W.1 has stated that on 14.8.1997 night at about 12 0'Clock while he himself and some boys of his village had kept themselves concealed near a banion tree close to the Grama Panchayat Office of his village, they found accused Basudev Murmu was carrying about 40 to 45 kgs of rice from the Grama Panchayat Office. On his query accused Basudev Murmu told him that at the direction of accused Krutibash Giri, who was then the Secretary in the Grama Panchayat Office, he was carrying the same. Hearing his shout many villagers arrived there. In the night he and others stayed there with accused Basudev Murmu and

informed the facts to the village Grama Rakshi. On the next morning they went to the Out Post and presented a written report vide Ext.1. Police seized that rice vide Ext.2 and Ext.2/1 is his signature. Subsequently Marketing Inspector of Kusumi Block made the seizure of remaining rice from the Grama Panchayat Office vide Ext.3. In cross-examination he has stated that he himself and some other villagers had kept concealed near a banion tree close to the Grama Panchayat Office. He found the accused Basudev Murmu was carrying 45 kgs of rice and seeing this, he and others detained accused Basudev Murmu along with rice. However, the learned counsel for the defence has not at all shaken his testimony. Hence I am clear that while accused Basudev Murmu was carrying 45 kgs of rice from the Grama Panchayat Office, at that time the villagers detained him. So also accused Basudev Murmu made an extra-judicial confession before him and others that at the direction of accused Krutibash Giri he was carrying the said rice. P.W.2 who is an independent witness has stated that on 14.8.1997 at about 11 P.M. while he himself and others were guarding the Panchayat Office, they found accused-peon- Basudev Murmu of the Grama Panchayat Office was carrying the rice from the Panchayat Office. They detained him and on their querry as to on whose direction he was carrying that rice, he told that accused-secretary, Krutibash Giri who was in the Grama Panchayat Office directed him to take the rice. Then they went to accused-Secretary and when there was a gathering hearing the shout, accused Krutibash Giri escaped. On the next day P.W.1 lodged a written report at the Out Post by producing the rice and accused Basudev Murmu. In para-8 he has stated that before detention and at the first sight of the person who was bringing rice from Panchayat Office side road, they could not identify him due to darkness. However, the learned counsel for the defence has not at all shaken his testimony. So the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 finds full corroboration to each other about the occurrence. However, they were the villagers of Uparbeda Grama Panchayat. The defence has not brought any enmity of them with the accused persons. Hence there is no doubt to disbelieve their evidence as their evidence is cogent, trustworthy, believable and clear. P.W.3 has stated that on 14.8.97 he handed over the prepared bundia to the accused. Secretary around 11 P.M. A little thereafter he heard a shout and found P.W.1 and others had detained accused-peon-Basudev

Murmu near a banion tree which tree was near the Panchayat Office. Some rice was there with the accused. No doubt, he was present while the accused was detained by P.Ws.1, 2 and others. So, he has clearly stated that hearing hulla, he went to the spot and found the rice and the accused were there. In his cross- examination he has stated that he has stated before the I.O. that near Panchayat Office he heard that accused-peon Basudev Murmu was caught hold of. P.W.7 has stated that he was the Ward Member of Uparbeda Grama Panchayat and the occurrence was taken place on 14.8.97 night. On 15.8.97 morning he heard the occurrence and went to Uparbeda Panchayat Office at about 8 A.M. Accused Krutibash Giri was the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat Office and the accused Basudev Murmu was the peon. They were present at the G.P. Office. The villagers had detained Basudev Murmu alongwith 40 to 45 kgs. of rice. On his question Basudev Murmu made an extra-judicial confession before him and others that he was carrying rice at the instance of accused Panchayat Secretary-Krutibash Giri and he gave the facts in writing and thereafter he and others informed to the police. In cross-examination he has stated that the spot was at a distance of 100 to 150 yards from the Grama Panchayat Office. Except this the learned counsel for the defence has not suggested him many things to which he has denied. So from the evidence of P.W.7 it is clear that on 15.8.97 morning he came to the spot and found the rice and accused Basudev Murmu were detained alongwith the stolen rice. On his question the accused had confessed his guilty before them. So from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7, it is clear that accused-Basudev Murmu was carrying rice from the Grama Panchayat Office at the direction of the Panchayat Secretary, accused-Krutibash Giri. Further, it is clear that the accused had confessed his guilty about the occurrence. So there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses as their evidence finds full corroboration to each other."

9. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the guilt of the

appellants for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was recorded

and both the accused appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six

months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default,

to undergo R.I. for a further period of 15 days.

10. Being aggrieved by the findings leading to the conviction and

sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, both the appellants have

filed the present appeal conjointly. However, after the demise of the

appellant no.2, the present appeal is confined to the appellant no.1 only.

11. So as to find out as to whether recording of the guilt by the learned

trial Court against the appellant no.1 is concerned, the evidence was

appropriately appreciated or not, this Court, with the help of the learned

counsel appearing for the respective parties has gone into the entire

evidence.

12. P.W.1 was the informant in the present case. He has deposed that

on 14.08.1997 at about 12' 0 clock, he discovered the accused Basudev

Murmu, the appellant no.2 was carrying about 40 kgs. of rice from the

Grama Panchayat Office. On query, he disclosed that on the direction of

the other accused, who was then in the Grama Panchayat Office, he was

carrying the same. The said accused was detained by the villagers in that

night and they went to the Police Station on the next day and gave

written report marked Ext.1. On the next day, the police came and

apprehended the accused appellant no.2 and seized the rice. In the cross-

examination also, he has categorically stated that 45 kgs. of BPL rice

was seized from the appellant no.2. In his entire evidence, he has not

taken the name of the present appellant no.1 except saying that on the

direction of the other accused, who was then in the G.P. Office, the

accused appellant no.2 was carrying the rice. Even in the cross-

examination, he has not categorically disclosed that, who was the other

accused.

13. However, P.W.2, in his examination-in-chief has stated as under:

"On 14.08.1997 at about 11 P.M. while myself and others were guarding the panchayat office we found accused Peon of the panchayat was carrying rice from the panchayat office. We detained him and on our query as to on whose direction he was carrying that rice, he told that accused Secretary who was in the G.P. office directed him to take the rice. We went to accused Secretary and when there was a gathering hearing shout accused Secretary escaped. That night we detained accused Peon with the rice and on the next day matter was reported to police."

The said witness except saying that the co-accused has disclosed

regarding involvement of the appellant no.1, no overt act was attributed

to the appellant no.1. In quite contrast to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3

another villager has very categorically stated that nobody had come to

the panchayat office at night after apprehending Basudev Murmu, the

appellant no.2. He has very categorically stated that "nobody had come

to the panchayat office and no shout was made there. I cannot say if

accused Secretary left for his house closing the panchayat office after I

handed over sweets. He was outside the panchayat office when I found

detention of accused Secretary near the banion tree."

The testimony of P.W.3 contradicts the version of P.W.2.

14. P.W.4 is an interested witness in the present case. He is the son of

the present appellant. He was examined by the prosecution to say that at

the instance of the Sub-Collector, he gave the key of the Panchayat

Office as well as the go-down. He has also stated that the Sub-Collector

opened the Grama Panchayat Office in his presence and also opened the

go-down and seized Q.3.56 kgs. 250 grams of rice from the go-down.

Opening of the Grama Panchayat Office and the go-down by the Sub-

Collector after receiving the key from P.W.4, has been supported by

P.W.5. Similar is the version of P.Ws. 6 and 7.

15. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed that "during

investigation I examined the complainant, visited the spot, examined the

witnesses, I seized 45 kgs. of rice vide Ext.2. Ext.2/2 is my signature on

it. I arrested accused Basudev Murmu. On 19.08.1997 I seized Q.3.17 kg

and 250 grams of control rice from M.I. Kusumi vide seizure list Ext.3.

On 20.8.1997 I further seized the aforesaid rice from M.I. Kusumi and

prepared seizure list vide Ext.4. Ext.4/1 is my signature. After

completion of investigation I submitted charge sheet against accused

persons."

16. From the prosecution evidence as discussed above, it could safely

be concluded that no recovery was made from the present appellant no.1.

He has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure of the co-accused,

namely, the deceased appellant no.2. No independent witness or any

document to that effect has been brought on record by the prosecution to

establish the complicity of the present appellant in the instant case.

Barring the alleged confessional statement by the co-accused, no

evidence is coming to fore to establish that the present appellant has

directed or conspired with the co-accused to remove the BPL rice from

the Panchayat Office go-down. The prosecution has miserably failed to

establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt regarding the involvement

of the present appellant in the present case. The chain of event is not

completely proven except the hearsay evidence without the direct

knowledge and the witnesses have deposed only to support the

prosecution. That being the nature of the evidence sustaining the

conviction against the appellant no.1 is not safe. The other aspect of the

matter is regarding the seizure of the rice. No evidence is coming on

record to establish the exact weight of the rice allegedly seized from the

appellant no.2.

17. In this regard, the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 8 are startling. P.W.1

in a very categorical terms says in his examination-in-chief that 40 kgs.

of rice was recovered from the accused appellant no.2. However, in the

cross-examination, he has stated that 45 kgs. of rice was recovered from

the appellant no.2, which is directly contradicted by P.W.8, who is the

I.O. There is no evidence coming forth on record to the extent that the

prosecution has ever attempted to carry out the weight of the rice.

18. In view of the nature of the evidence as discussed above, I am not

inclined to sustain the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court.

Accordingly, the judgment dated 01.03.2000 passed by the learned

Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, District-

Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.313 of 1997 (T.C. No.6/1998) is set aside

and the appellant No.1 is acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the

Essential Commodities Act. The bail bond stands discharged.

19. This Court records appreciation for the effective and meaningful

assistance rendered by Ms. Bidisha Sahu, learned Amicus Curiae. She is

entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five

hundred) as a token of appreciation.

20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 28th Day of October, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 30-Oct-2025 19:38:19