[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kandra Majhi vs State Of Odisha on 11 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.927 of 2025
Kandra Majhi .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Prabhav Behera, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.03.2026
(Hybrid mode)
14. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under Section
302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand),
in default to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence
under Section 302 of I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge,
Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.06 of 2019 (Sessions).
4. Pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2026, learned counsel for
the State has produced the written instruction received from the
I.I.C., Biswanathpur P.S., which shows that the appellant has no
criminal antecedents. He has produced another report dated
11.03.2026 received from the Superintendent, District jail,
Bhawanipatna, which indicates that the conduct of the convict-
appellant in the jail is satisfactory and the appellant has already
undergone custody for a period of seven years two months twenty-
eight days as on 20.01.2026.
5. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is
no direct evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the
appellant. The following circumstances are cited against the
appellant:-
"1. Accused Kandra Majhi was husband of the
deceased and prior to this occurrence he was
quarrelling with the deceased.
2. On the relevant night deceased and accused
were sleeping together in their dwelling
house, where the occurrence took place.
3. In the early morning at about 4 AM, dead
body of the deceased with injuries was found
on the verandah of the house and there were
blood stains at the spot.
4. Deceased suffered a homicidal death.
5. On the basis of the disclosure statement of
accused while in police custody, the weapon
of offence i.e. a wooden plank (Paharun) was
recovered and seized from the place of
concealment."
6. In order to substantiate the circumstance regarding extra-
judicial confession, the prosecution examined P.Ws.3, 6, 7, 10, 11
and 14. However, P.Ws.7, 10, 11 and 14 did not support the
prosecution case and were declared hostile. In so far as P.Ws.3 and
6 are concerned, no doubt, these two witnesses have deposed that
the occurrence had taken place about three years back. The
accused-Kandara Majhi was married to the deceased-Andrani
Majhi, who was residing with him. When the witnesses came to
know regarding the death of the wife of the accused, they went to
the spot and the accused told them that the deceased-Andrani
Majhi had not given water to him and he killed the deceased by
assaulting her by means of a Pahuruni Geda. However, in the
cross-examination, both the witnesses have stated that this aspect
of the matter has not been disclosed by them to the I.O., when they
were examined by the police. Therefore, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that in so far as extra-judicial confession
is concerned, the evidence of PWs 3 and 6 comes under the cloud
of doubt, hence not trustworthy.
The prosecution also examined P.Ws.10 and 11 to
establish its case regarding the recovery of weapon of offence on
the disclosure statement of the accused. However, both the
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have
flatly denied to have any knowledge regarding such recovery.
Therefore, the invocation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
is also seriously doubted. In order to prove the circumstances that
the appellant was lastly seen with the deceased, no substantive
evidence has been led by the prosecution.
7. Keeping in view the nature of aforementioned evidence
brought on record by the prosecution, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to bail particularly
for the reason that the appeal is not likely to come up for hearing in
the near future.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has
strenuously opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant on
the ground that the circumstantial evidence which has been
brought on record is solid and the learned trial Court has dealt with
all the circumstances in minutely detail and recorded the
conviction with reasons.
9. We have taken into consideration the materials available
on record and also the submissions made by learned counsel for
both the parties at the Bar. Keeping in view the nature of evidence,
the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that
there is no chance of the appeal being heard in near future, we are
inclined to release the appellant-petitioner on bail.
10. Let the appellant be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand)
with one local solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction
of the learned trial Court, subject to the condition that while on bail
the appellant-petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities
in any manner and any other conditions to be imposed by the
learned trial Court deem fit and proper.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of interim bail.
11. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
