[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ranjan Sahu & Others vs State Of Odisha on 26 February, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 320 of 2004
From judgment dated 17.09.2004 passed in S.T. Case No. 38/15 of
2002 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh.
--------------
Ranjan Sahu & Others ...... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
_______________________________________________________
For Appellants : Ms. D. Mahapatra
Advocate
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: 19.02.2026 Date of Judgment: 26.02.2026
___________________________________________________________
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The appellants seek to challenge the judgment
dated 17.09.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Deogarh in Sessions Trial No.38/5 of 2002 whereby,
they were convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34
of I.P.C. and 201/34 of I.P.C. along with Section 120(B) of
IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case is as follows:-
On 21.08.2001, materials worth Rs.4,45,02,302.01/-
were being transported in a truck belonging to Lakhotia
Transport Company Private Ltd. from Hindustan Lever Ltd.,
C&F Agents Transport India, at Vapi, Gujrat to Hindustan
Lever Ltd. C&F Agents, United Agencies (Quality Service)
Chakhmur, West Bengal. The truck was being driven by Om
Prakash Yadav (deceased). On 28.01.2001, the company
came to know from the driver of another truck belonging to
it that the truck in question was found abandoned in a
sloping condition at Bayapandadhar near Suakati Outpost
with its driver and helper missing. Further, the rear
tarpaulin was open and the materials were missing. The
company's representative proceeded to the spot from
Calcutta and arrived there on 29.08.2001 and found the
truck as described with sizable quantity of cases missing.
The Director of the company submitted a report at Suakati
Outpost on 30.08.2001 alleging that the driver and helper
may have committed theft or misappropriated the materials
being transported. The FIR was sent to Keonjhar Sadar
Police station, where it was registered and investigation
commenced.
3. In course of investigation, the dead body of the
deceased was found in a jungle under the jurisdiction of
Parjang police station. Further investigation revealed that
the accused persons had boarded the truck at Ranja at
Golabandha in the district of Deogarh and demanded the
driver to provide them liquor. Then they invited the driver
for taking liquor with them in the village. After some time,
the appellants returned with the driver. Appellant Ranjan
drove the truck towards Talcher and stopped the truck on
the plea of attending call of nature. After some time, they
went and stopped near Gambharia bridge and went to the
jungle with the deceased. They returned without the
deceased and drove away the truck. The helper had already
fled away by then out of fear. Investigation also revealed that
the three appellants had killed the deceased by assaulting
him. Their complicity having been unearthed, charge-sheet
was submitted against them under Sections
364/302/201/379/34 of IPC read with Section 120(B) of
IPC. Be it noted that three other persons, namely, Guru
Charan Gagrai, Rabindra Kumar Haiburu and
Mithu@Balmukunda Chaudhury@Jaiswal, from whose
possession some of the materials were recovered during
investigation, were also charge-sheeted under Sections
411/34 of IPC.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined fourteen
witnesses and proved twenty-two documents. Prosecution
also proved seven material objects. Defence did not adduce
any evidence.
5. The trial Court, relying on the evidence of P.W.6
held that he had last seen the deceased with the accused
persons. The report of Test Identification Parade, medical
evidence and the evidence of discovery and seizure of the
alleged weapons of offence were also relied upon to hold that
the chain of circumstances was complete and proved that
the three appellants had committed the murder of the
deceased. No evidence was however, found against the other
persons who stood trial with the appellants for which they
were acquitted. The appellants were however, convicted of
murder and sentenced as aforesaid.
6. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for
the appellants and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned ASC for
the State.
7. Ms. Mahapatra assails the impugned order of
conviction raising the following grounds :-
i. There is no finding that death of the deceased was
homicidal in nature for which the conviction under
Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable.
ii. Prosecution never proved any motive on the part
of the appellants for allegedly committing the crime.
iii. The evidence of P.W.6 on whom prosecution
heavily relied upon is beset with serious
contradictions which demolishes the last seen
theory.
iv. Prosecution could not establish an unbroken
chain of circumstances to show the guilt of the
appellants.
8. Per contra, Ms. S. Devi would argue that not only
that P.W.6 stated about seeing the deceased for the last time
in the company of the accused persons but also there was
other evidence such as medical evidence, discovery and
seizure of weapons of offence etc., which clearly reveal a
complete chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the
appellants.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the
contentions raised and have also carefully perused the case
record along with the impugned judgment. As already
stated, the FIR was lodged alleging theft and
misappropriation of the materials transported in the truck
against the driver (deceased) and the helper (P.W.6). In
course of investigation, it was found that an unidentified
dead body was found lying inside the bushy jungle near
Gambharia bridge on N.H.-23, in a decomposed state. The
dead body was identified by the authorized representative of
the company as being that of the deceased. On such facts,
we are surprised that the trial Court took it for granted that
the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. We find
that as many as five points were framed by the trial Court
for determination but no point was framed regarding the
nature of death. Whether the death was natural, accidental,
suicidal or homicidal does not appear to have been a
consideration for the trial Court at all. In a case of murder,
particularly when the dead body is recovered, it has to be
first proved that the death was homicidal in nature. Even if
there is some evidence to show that the deceased was last
seen in the company of the accused persons, they cannot be
convicted for his murder unless it is first proved that the
deceased had met with a homicidal death. In the case of
Madho Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR
OnLine 2002 SC 681, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"6. In the absence of proof of homicidal death the
appellants cannot be convicted merely on the theory
of last seen - 'they having gone with the deceased in
the manner noticed hereinbefore. The appellants'
conviction cannot be maintained merely on suspicion,
however strong it may be, or on their conduct. These
facts assume further importance on account of
absence of proof of motive particularly when it is
proved that all the three were good friends for over a
decade."
10. We are conscious that prosecution can still prove
homicidal death by circumstantial evidence but then such
circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive
character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim
had met a homicidal death. As already stated, the trial
Court has overlooked this vital aspect of the matter for
which, the impugned judgment becomes vulnerable.
11. Nevertheless, with a view to further satisfy
ourselves, we have gone through the evidence of P.W.6 in
detail as he is said to be the only person who had seen the
accused persons with the deceased but we find that almost
all of his testimony implicating the accused persons was
found to be improvements from his original version before
the I.O.
We deem it proper to reproduce the testimony of P.W.6
whereby he implicated the accused appellants-
" xxx xxx xxx xxx
At that time, the accused persons-Ranjan, Parkhit
and Khetrabasi who were in a nearby shop called,
shouting the name of the driver-Prakash. When the
driver stopped the truck these three accused persons
came to him and demanded to and demanded to
provide them liquor, to which, the driver replied that
he has no money with him. Thereafter, these three
accused persons invited the driver for taking liquor
with them and accordingly they went inside the
village, while I remained in the truck. After sometime
these three accused persons with driver-Prakash
returned to the truck, where after, accused-Ranjan
started driving the truck and driver-Prakash took rest
inside with the other two accused persons. After
reaching Pallahada accused-Ranjan diverted the
route towards Talcher. When the driver enquired as to
why the route is diverted accused-Ranjan replied that
they would go via-Talcher. After Pallahada while the
truck was passing through a forest accused- Ranjan
stopped the truck and be with Khetrabasi intended to
go to attend the call of nature and asked me to
accompany them. Out of fear; I woke up the driver
and on his instruction gave water to Ranjan and
Khetrabasi but they did not go for attending the call of
nature. Thereafter, we all proceeded in the truck upto
a bridge where at the toll gate Rs.40/- was paid and
the truck proceeded ahead. Thereafter we reached
Gambharia bridge after Talcher. At the bridge the
truck was stopped and these three accused persons
with driver-Prakash went to take theis bath. Driver-
Prakash was then wearing a full pant and a ganjee
and was also wearing a boot. He was also having a
belt. I remained in the truck. After half an hour
accused- Parkhit returned to the truck and asked me
for the knife kept in the truck so that they would bring
some jungle meat. Out of fear and suspicion I
concealed the knife in my pocket and told him that it
is not available. He then directed me to climb to the
cabin to bring a rope and on my refusal he directed
me to get down and then went away saying to
proceed for cooking. After that I went to jungle.
Before that accused-Parkhit himself climbed to the
cabin and took the rope. After that I fled away
towards the jungle out of fear. I concealed inside the
forest and kept watching and saw that these three
accused persons returned to the truck and then
proceeded ahead with the truck. Though the driver-
Prakash was not seen with them I presumed that he
might have come earlier to the truck. After that I
returned to my house. Since then I have not seen
driver-Prakash.
xxx xxx xxx xxx"
[Emphasis added]
Now, we reproduce the statement of the I.O. (P.W.14)
relating to the testimony of P.W.6-
" xxx xxx xxx xxx
P.W.1 Kuna Jit was examined by me on 1.9.01.
Krushna Chandra Patra (P.w.6) was examined by me
on 5.9.01. It is not a fact that no register of the Samal
barage toll-gate was seized by me. Krushna chandra
Patra has not stated before me the names of the
persons who obstructed the truck at Golabandha
calling the name of the deceased. He has stated that
two persons calling the name of the deceased
obstructed the truck. He has not stated about
payment of Rs.40/- at the Toll gate. He has also not
stated to have concealed the knife in his pocket.
xxx xxx xxx xxx"
[Emphasis added]
12. As can be seen, he had not even named the accused
persons before the police during investigation but had
referred to 'two persons' calling the name of the deceased
who obstructed the road. This demolishes his credibility
greatly and therefore, his subsequent statements
implicating the accused persons cannot be relied upon.
13. The witness to discovery and seizure of the alleged
weapons of offence, P.W.4, turned hostile. The other witness
to seizure, P.W.9 also turned hostile. Under such
circumstances, the so-called disclosure/confessional
statement of the accused persons loses it evidentiary value.
14. The trial Court accepted that there is no direct evidence
and that the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
Strangely, ignoring the material contradictions in the
evidence of P.W. 6, the trial Court thought it proper to rely
upon it. On the question of homicidal death, the trial Court
itself observed that the medical evidence was not helpful
and that there was no medical opinion as regards cause of
death. Having held so, the trial Court still relied upon the
so-called confessional statement of the accused. Again,
ignoring the lack of credibility in the evidence of P.W.6, the
trial court held that the last seen theory was proved.
15. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, we are
unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the findings of
the trial Court. It is stated at the cost of repetition that from
the evidence on record, only a feeble suspicion can be
aroused against the appellants but then, it is trite that
suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof
required to hold the accused guilty of the offence. We
therefore, hold that the order of conviction cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
16. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, therefore,
allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 17.09.2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Deogarh in S.T. Case No. 38/15 of 2002 are hereby set
aside. The appellants being on bail, their bail bonds be
discharged.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree.
.....................................
Manash Ranjan Pathak,
Judge
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Reason: Authentication
The
Location: Orissa 26Court,
High th Feb,2026/
Cuttack B.C. Tudu
Date: 28-Feb-2026 15:21:36
