Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik vs State Of Orissa
2026 Latest Caselaw 3472 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRA No.218 of 1995

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

Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik                 .......           Appellant
                                  -Versus-
State of Orissa                   .......              Respondent

      For the Appellant     : Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada,
                              along with Ms. Chetana Prakash,
                              Amicus Curiae

      For the Respondent : Mr. Auroninda Mohanty,
                           Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

 THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
 Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026      :    Date of Judgment: 16.04.2026

S.S. Mishra, J.    The sole appellant has assailed the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.1995 passed by the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. No.15/276 of

1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

(Rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six

months more.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 1995. Continuously

none appeared for the appellant, when the matter was taken up for

hearing. Therefore, initially vide order dated 26.09.2023, Mr. Satya

Narayan Mishra, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist

the Court. However, he did not appear to argue the matter. Therefore,

vide order dated 18.12.2024, in place of Mr. S.N. Mishra, Mr. S.C.D.

Dash, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court

in the matter. Mr. Dash also remained absent. Therefore, vide order

dated 10.02.2026, Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate was appointed as

Amicus Curiae along with Ms. Chetana Prakash, Advocate to assist

the Court in place of Mr. S.C.D. Dash. Ms. Chetana Prakash assisted

Mr. Ragada in the matter when the matter was heard and subsequently

on 19.02.2026 she filed a detailed written note of submission along

with relied upon judgments.

3. Heard Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae along with Ms.

Chetana Prakash, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant

and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel

appearing for the Respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 09.02.1992, at

about 8 p.m., when the informant was returning home, he found the

accused lifting his daughter to a nearby place. On his protest, the

accused gave him a push and after proceeding to a short distance,

dealt a knife blow on the belly of his daughter Rosi Bibi making her

intestine surge forward. When the informant shouted for help, the

people of the locality arrived at the spot and the accused fled away

from the spot. The injured was shifted to the Kendrapara Hospital for

treatment, but as her condition was serious, she was referred to the

S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. Hence, the

F.I.R.

5. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial. He claimed

trial, therefore, after framing of charges under Section 307 of the IPC,

he was put to trial.

6. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its

case. P.W.1 is the informant. P.W.2 was a witness to the seizure of

M.O.I. P.W.3 is the daughter of the informant (P.W.1), who is a post-

occurrence witness. P.W.4 was Rosi Bibi, who was injured. P.W.5 is

the daughter of the informant (P.W.1), who was a post-occurrence

witness. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, who submitted the

charge-sheet in the present case. P.W.7 was the doctor, who treated

P.W.4 at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. P.W.8 and

P.W.9 were the witnesses to the seizure.

7. The sole appellant stood charged for commission of the offence

under Section 307 of the IPC. The learned trial Court, after analysing

the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the occurrence took place in

the evening of 09.02.1992. Rosi Bibi-P.W.4 a young woman of 22

years was brutally attacked by the accused-appellant as a result of

which she had to be hospitalised for a considerable long period of

time. The learned trial Court was of the view that the present case is

borne out of a love story, anger and revenge which led to the bloody

consequences. However, the prosecution has failed to bring on record

any such evidence which would give a hint regarding the intention of

the appellant to attack P.W.4 least the case of love, anger and

revenge.

8. P.W.1 is the father of the victim, who is the informant in the

present case. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence, when he

was returning home from the market, he found that the accused

grabbing his daughter. On his protest, the accused gave a push to him

as a result of which he fell down. The accused lifted his daughter to a

nearby place with an intention to kill and dump her in the well. When

he chased the accused, he found that he has been repeatedly stabbing

his daughter with a knife on her belly, neck and back. He further

deposed that the accused was trying to slit the throat of his daughter.

9. P.W.4, the victim has deposed in her evidence that she has been

working as a maid servant and while returning home after the work at

the night time, the accused confronted her. The incident has taken

place while she was trying to cross the road in the basti. The accused

dragged her to a lonely vicinity of the basti. In the lonely place, she

went on stabbing with a knife like a man cutting a goat. The accused

went on stabbing at her neck, back and belly. She further deposed that

the accused wanted to part with by morals and on her refusal, the

accused went on stabbing her. The accused endeavoured to throw her

in the well. Hence, he lifted her, but could not succeed. She further

deposed that she returned to home by pressing her belly as the

intestines were coming out. She came home and narrated the incident

to the family members. In her cross-examination, she has further

stated that about 200 to 250 persons gathered at the spot after they

heard her shout, but none of them intervened in the matter. She lost

her senses after she fell down and only regained her senses after some

time and managed to run her house.

10. P.Ws.3 and 5 were examined by the prosecution being post-

occurrence witnesses. Both of them have supported the prosecution,

and deposed that with the help of a knife, the accused tore opened the

belly of P.W.4. P.W.2 is the seizure witness, who did not support the

prosecution and deposed that nothing was seized by the police in his

presence. However, he has admitted his signature in the seizure list

having denied the seizure.

11. Interestingly, in this case, the prosecution failed to bring on

record the injury report. The doctor, P.W.7 in his deposition has

stated that all the injuries were covered by medicaments and niko

plast. Therefore, he could not give the details of the injury sustained

by P.W.4. But he deposed that P.W.4 was referred to the S.C.B. from

the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Kendrapara and for abdominal injury,

P.W.4 was also operated upon.

12. Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae along with Ms.

Chetana Prakash appearing for the appellant emphatically highlighted

regarding non-production of the injury report by the prosecution and

submitted that non-production and non-proving of the injuries

sustained by P.W.4 through adequate oral or documentary evidence

goes to the route of the matter. Therefore, the conviction recorded

under Section 307 of the IPC is not safe to be sustained.

13. The learned trial Court in paragraphs-9, 10 and 11 of the

impugned judgment has appreciated this aspect of the matter and

returned the following findings:

"9. Pity for the prosecution is that there is no injury report. A doctor examined as P.W.7 testifies the fact that when he attended Rosy Bibi in the medical the injuries were covered with medicaments and Niko Plast. The doctor found the following:-

"All the injuries were covered by medicaments and Niko plast. The patient was referred to SCB from sub-divisional Hospital Kendrapara. For the abdomal injuries she was operated at 12.30 A.M. on 10.2.92."

Ext.4 is the report of the Doctor and he has said about confinement or Rosy Bibi on bed for about a fortnight.

10.All the injuries done to Rosy Bibi are the effects of Spring knife (M.O.I) that was recovered by the I.O. (P.W.6) from the accused. Evidence of the Investigating Officer discloses that the condition of the victim became serious, for which she was transferred from Kendrapara Hospital to Cuttack Medical, and did seizure of the relevant the list of which are marked as Ext.1 and Ext.3.

11. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are attendants of Cuttack medical and police seized a bed-head ticket in their presence as per Ext.3. P.W.2 is an independent witness and he does not implicate the accused in any way. Independent corroboration is nil and the case is built by Rosy Bibi and her relatives.

Even taking for granted that there is no independent corroboration, I hold the prosecution case as reasonably proved with what there is in record. The Doctor, the knife, the victim, her father, her relatives have all said about the brutality of the accused and the serious effect of his action on the life of a person. On my part I wonder how a woman

survived with multiple injuries and with the opening of her belly by a knife which forced out the intestine to come out ?"

14. Mr. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae further pointed out the

contradictions in the evidence of P.W.4 vis-à-vis P.W.1, the informant

and other witnesses. It is pointed out that P.W.1 in the cross-

examination has stated that P.W.4 gained the consciousness after

about 15 days. However, P.W.4 herself deposed that she gained

consciousness only after two months whereas P.W.7, the doctor has

stated that P.W.4 was admitted to the hospital on 09.02.1992 and was

discharged on 22.02.1992. The evidence of all the three witnesses, if

read together, a serious doubt is being created as to whether P.W.4

was remained in the hospital for about 15 days or for two months.

Similarly, it was pointed out that P.W.4 in her deposition has stated

that she was not examined by the police whereas P.W.6, the

Investigating Officer in paragraph-7 of his deposition has stated that

he had recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses.

Further P.W.4 in paragraph-6 of her deposition has stated that the

accused grabbed her for about five minutes at the road crossing. At

the same time, she has stated that the accused has held her for about

half an hour at the same spot. Even the deposition regarding she lost

her consciousness immediately after sustaining injury is creating a

serious doubt. Further Mr. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae has

pointed out that P.W.1 has stated that he has witnessed the accused

forcibly dragging his daughter and also witnessed stabbing by the

accused. However, in the deposition of P.W.4, the presence of her

father at the spot has not been mentioned. Therefore, as per Mr.

Ragada, P.W.1 was not the eye witness.

15. Regarding recovery of the weapon, it is submitted that recovery

is surrounded by serious contradictions and marred by procedural

irregularities. The seizure witness, P.W.2 has deposed that nothing

was seized in his presence. He further stated that though the search

was conducted in the house of P.W.1, but nothing was recovered.

However, the Investigating Officer, P.W.6 has given yet another

version regarding recovery of the weapon of offence. The

Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has stated as under:

"The weapon of offence was in the Police Station till the charge sheet was filed. Thereafter the weapon of offence has come to the Court Malkhana through Kendrapara Police Station. I cannot say if the weapon like M.O.-I are made available in the market. It is not a fact that M.O.-I is not a weapon of offence in this case."

16. Mr. Ragada further has taken me to the evidence of various

other witnesses to question the trustworthiness of those evidences,

particularly in absence of examination of any independent witnesses,

although P.W.4 in her deposition has stated that about 200 to 250

people had gathered at the spot. Mr. Ragada has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Raju and another vs. State of Uttarakhand,

reported in 2024 Livelaw (SC) 622. It is submitted by Mr. Ragada that

the conviction recorded under Section 307 of the IPC can be justified

only where the intention is clearly established and coupled with the

overt act in execution thereof. In the instant case, the motive behind

such attack has not been adduced through adequate evidence by the

prosecution. Therefore, the narrative of the prosecution story

regarding the incident is not supported with any motive or intention

on the part of the appellant to commit such offence. Both P.W.1 and

P.W.4 have admitted the absence of prior enmity. Therefore, relying

upon paragraphs-9 and 10 of the judgment of Raju (supra), Mr.

Ragada submitted that on the face of the evidence available on record,

the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence

under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant is not sustainable

under law.

17. I have carefully taken into consideration the evidence as

discussed above as well as the reasonings recorded by the learned trial

Court while appreciating the evidence and I have also taken into

consideration the submissions made by both the learned Amicus

Curiae as well as the learned counsel for the State. From the evidence

brought on record, although there are contradictions apparent on

record, but those contradictions are not material to ignore the

evidence of P.W.4, the victim and the other circumstantial evidences.

The fact remains that P.W.4 has sustained injuries at the hands of the

accused. The post-occurrence witnesses have lent support to the

evidence of P.W.4 besides the evidence of P.W.1 supporting the

narrative of the incident.

18. P.W.7, the doctor has also deposed that P.W.4 was admitted to

the hospital and she was operated upon. The injuries sustained by

P.W.4 are grievous in nature which is apparent from the evidence of

P.W.7. Although the prosecution has failed to bring on record the

injury report, but mere non-production of the injury report cannot

wash away the evidence of P.W.7. That is the reasoning recorded by

the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment in paragraphs-9 and

10 as reproduced above, which I concur.

19. Therefore, I am fully in agreement with the findings recorded

by the learned trial Court. Although it is seen that the learned trial

Court has not elaborately dealt with the evidence of all the witnesses

but the fact remains that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are

cogent, unimpeachable and worth reliance. Hence, the impugned

judgment of conviction merits affirmation.

20. At this stage, Mr. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae has also

argued that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view while imposing

the sentence. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to

undergo R.I. for 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-. It appears

from the record that the appellant has already undergone custody for a

period of 1 year, 7 months and 5 days. The incident relates back to the

year 1992. At that point of time, the appellant was about 22 years of

age. Hence, at present, the appellant would be about 55 years of age.

Much water has flown under the bridge by now. The appellant is

already settled in his life with his family. Over the years, he has lived

peacefully, well integrated into society, and is presently leading stable

family life. Incarcerating him at this belated stage would have a

serious and cascading effect on the entire family. Therefore, he

submitted that a lenient view should be taken while considering the

sentencing of the appellant..

21. In view of the aforementioned mitigating facts and

circumstances, the prayer made by Mr. Ragada, learned Amicus

Curiae deserves merit. Taking into consideration the aforementioned,

while upholding the conviction u/s307 I.P.C the sentence imposed by

the learned trial Court to the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC,

is modified to that of the period the appellant has already undergone.

However, to balance the scale of Justice the fine of Rs.1,000/-

imposed on the appellant is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-, in the event of

failure to pay the fine amount, the appellant shall undergo R.I. for a

period of six months more. The appellant shall deposit the fine

amount within a period of four weeks from today. The fine amount to

be deposited shall be disbursed to P.W.4 in accordance with Section

357 of the Cr. P.C. as compensation.

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

23. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and

meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada and Ms.

Chetana Prakash, learned Amicus Curiae(s). They are entitled to an

honorarium of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) each to be paid as

token of appreciation.

(S.S. Mishra)

Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Designation: Personal Assistant Dated the 16th Day of April 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 16-Apr-2026 20:53:23