[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kawasi Suka vs State Of Odisha on 24 February, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 149 of 2001
From order dated 15.06.2001 passed in Sessions Case No. 100 of
1999 (SC No. 293/98) of learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Malkangiri.
--------------
Kawasi Suka ...... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
_______________________________________________________
For Appellants : M/s. S.K. Dash, S.P. Dash,
& A.B. Srichandan
Advocates
For Respondent : Ms. S. Devi,
[Addl. Standing Counsel]
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Date of Hearing-17.02.2026 Date of Judgment-24.02.2026
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
The appellant calls in question the correctness of
the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Malkangiri on 25.06.2001 in Sessions Case No.
100 of 1999, whereby he being convicted of the offence
under Section 302 of IPC, was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution case, briefly stated is that on
10.05.1997 at about 8.00 p.m. when the informant
Pilaram Sagaria and his father were sitting on the
verandah of their house, the present appellant and three
other persons, namely, Kunjami Chenna, Madkami Sukra
and Madkami Budura, scaled the boundary wall of their
home and abused his father saying why he had forcibly
taken the drum of the Jatra Party and threatened to kill
them both. Thereafter, they pelted stones due to which the
informant sustained injury near his ear and to save
himself, he hid behind a tree near his house while his
father entered inside the house while closed the door. All
the accused persons then holding bows and arrows and
tangia came inside their house by breaking open the door
and assaulted the informant's father, who ran out to save
his life. At that time, the appellant shot an arrow from his
bow, which pierced his chest causing him to fall down.
The accused persons then assaulted him due to which he
died on the spot. The informant's mother came to rescue
but she was threatened. They left the spot after taking
away gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5000/-. The matter
was informed to the village member and others. On the
next day, informant went to Mathili police station and
lodged FIR leading to registration of P.S. Case No.43 of
1997 followed by investigation. Upon completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the
accused persons under Sections 457/337/427/
506/380/302/34 of IPC.
3. The defence plea was of denial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined nine
witnesses and proved thirteen documents. Besides, two
material objects were proved. Defence, on the other hand,
did not adduce any evidence.
5. The trial Court found that of the nine witnesses,
only the informant (P.W.4) and wife of the deceased
(P.W.5) were eyewitnesses. Analyzing the evidence of these
two witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, namely,
the post-mortem report and the evidence of the autopsy
surgeon (P.W.1), the trial Court believed the prosecution
case that the deceased had died because of the piercing of
arrow shot by the appellant into his right side chest.
Further, analyzing the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the
trial Court found that the case against the present
appellant was clearly proved but insofar as the other
accused persons were concerned, the evidence against
them was not adequate. Basically on such findings, while
acquitting the other accused persons of the charges, the
trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of
the I.P.C. As such, he was convicted and sentenced as
already stated hereinbefore.
6. Heard Mr. A.K. Dash, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
7. Mr. Dash assails the impugned judgment on the
following grounds:-
i. The prosecution did not cite any independent
witness and relied entirely on the evidence of
P.Ws. 4 and 5, who being the son and wife
respectively of the deceased, were interested
witnesses.
ii. The trial Court should not have believed the
evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, as it being a dark
night, they could not have seen the occurrence.
iii. There is inconsistency regarding the spot of
occurrence in the versions of P.Ws.4 and 5.
iv. P.W. 5, being present in the kitchen could not
have been seen the occurrence.
8. Per contra, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi would argue that
the occurrence having taken place inside the house of the
deceased at night, it is natural that no other person was
present there. As to the objection raised by the defence
that P.Ws.4 and 5 could not have seen the occurrence,
she draws attention of the Court, to the the spot map
marked Exhibit-10 to contend that the occurrence having
taken place within the premises of the house, both P.Ws.4
and 5 were direct witnesses to it. She further argues that
there is clear evidence that the accused persons came
inside by scaling the wall and shot the arrow at the
deceased for which he went inside the room but the
accused persons followed him and assaulted. He came out
to save himself and fell down in the courtyard. Since the
spot where the dead body was found was in front of the
kitchen where P.W.5 was present, it is very much possible
for her to have seen the occurrence herself.
9. At the outset, we take note of the fact that the
defence does not question the finding that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature being caused by
piercing of arrow in his chest besides other injuries. As
regards the authorship of the crime, we have given our
anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have
also carefully perused the evidence on record.
10. Admittedly, the occurrence took place inside the
house of the deceased at 8.00 p.m. This, by itself, rules
out the possibility of any outsider being present at the
time of occurrence. As regards the interestedness of P.Ws.
4 and 5, we are not inclined to accept the contention
raised by the defence, for the simple reason that it has not
been shown why P.Ws.4 and 5 would implicate the
accused persons if the crime had been committed by some
other persons. That apart, no motive is ascribed by the
defence for these witnesses to depose falsely against the
accused persons.
11. That said, we have carefully gone through the
evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, keeping in mind the following
two questions:
(i) Where exactly did the occurrence take place, and
(ii) Whether P.Ws. 4 and 5 could have seen the incident as
described by them.
12. In this context, we have perused the spot map
marked Exhibit-10 carefully. According to P.W.4, he and
his father were sitting on the verandah of their house. The
accused-Suka shot an arrow at his father and the arrow
pierced on the right side of chest and he fell down..
Thereafter, the other accused persons assaulted his father
with the blunt side of the axe and he died. He has not
pinpointed the spot of occurrence. In cross-examination,
he admits that there was no light in the village and only
one deepa (lamp) was burning inside the house. He
further admits that he went to the jackfruit tree as there
was a pelting of stones. His father entered inside the
house out of fear and was followed by the appellant. P.W.-
4 in his cross- examination also stated that seeing Budura
and other three persons came jumping the boundary wall,
out of fear he went to the back side of the house and that
the door at the back side of the house was closed. Read as
a whole, the evidence of P.W.4 does not indicate where
exactly the deceased was fatally wounded by the arrow
and where he was assaulted.
13. P.W.5, on the other hand, stated in cross-
examination that she was inside the kitchen and the
occurrence took place in the middle room. She also stated
that the occurrence took place inside the house and not
on the verandah. Turning to the spot map, we find that
the kitchen is marked 'F' and the courtyard intervenes
between the kitchen and the rooms marked 'A'. If the
occurrence, according to her, took place inside the room,
a doubt arises as to how P.W. 5 being in the kitchen could
see it. There is in fact, inconsistency as to the place
where the arrow was shot. According to P.W.4, it was the
verandah while according to P.W.5, it was inside the
house.
14. In the impugned judgment, we find that the trial
Court has mentioned that P.W.4, sustaining a brickbat
injury went near the jackfruit tree while his father entered
inside the house followed by the appellant but, P.W.4 does
not say anything at all about being injured on his back.
He simply said, 'There was pelting of stones. So, I went to
jackfruit tree'. This is, therefore, a perverse finding.
15. The prosecution case is that the appellant, Kawasi
Suka, shot the arrow while the other accused persons
assaulted the deceased with the blunt side of an axe. The
trial Court has disbelieved this claim, as no axe was
seized from the spot but police seized only a wooden plank
and a bamboo stick and none had seen the deceased
being assaulted with these two weapons. According to
P.Ws. 4 and 5, the assault was with the blunt side of the
axe. This raises a grave doubt as to the veracity of their
versions. Another important aspect is that according to
P.W.5, it was a dark night and one dibiri was burning in
the house. Obviously, a small lamp cannot be expected to
have lighted the entire premises so brightly as to afford a
clear vision of the happenings therein. Moreover,
according to P.W.-5, she was inside the kitchen and as per
P.W-4 back side door of the house was closed. From this it
cannot be ascertained that P.W.-5 saw the incident.
16. Thus, taking into consideration the discrepancies
and inconsistencies referred to in the preceding
paragraphs, we find that the case of the prosecution is not
free from reasonable doubts, the benefit of which ought to
be given to the accused persons. To reiterate, the version
of P.Ws. 4 and 5 does not appear to be credible or doubt-
free so as to be relied upon. The trial Court has
disbelieved the claim of assault by the other accused
persons and of theft of cash and gold by them from the
house because of inadequate evidence.
17. We are of the considered view that the same analogy
ought to have been applied to the claim that the appellant
had shot the deceased with an arrow, causing his death.
The case, as laid, according to us, is not free from
reasonable doubts. For such reason therefore, the
impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained.
18. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is
therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri
dated 15.06.2001 in Sessions Case no. 100 of 1999 are
hereby set aside. The appellant, being on bail, his bail
bond be discharged.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree.
..................................
Manash Ranjan Pathak,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 24th Feb,2026/ B.C. Tudu
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 28-Feb-2026 15:21:36
