Sri Krushna Chandra Das vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2361 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sri Krushna Chandra Das vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 13 March, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRLREV No.227 of 2003

   (In the matter of an application under Section 401 read with
    Section 397(1)/385/389/360(1)(4) of the Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973 and Section 4 and 11 of the Probation of
                       Offenders Act, 1985)

   1. Sri Krushna Chandra Das
      @ Senapati (since dead)              ....         Petitioners
   2. Maheswar Naik (since
      dead)
   3. Pabitra Kumar Naik
   4. Rama Chandra Nayak
   5. Muralidhar Mahanta (since
      dead)
   6. Abhiram Naik

                                -versus-

  State of Orissa                          ....     Opposite Party



  For Petitioners               :     Ms. S. Samantaray,
                                      Amicus Curiae

  For Opposite Party            :     Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA


       CORAM:
                        JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                    DATE OF HEARING :23.02.2026
                    DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.03.2026

   V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned Amicus curiae for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 09.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.15/160 of 1999/02 affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 23.07.1999 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. Case No.62/175 of 1997 under Section 399/402 of IPC and imposing sentence to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 (Four) years on each count and with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The allegation against the present Petitioners is that they (all the six Petitioners) had congregated in the river-bed and were nabbed at the time when they were trying to commit dacoity in the house of one Mayadhar Ratha of Village Angarua. It is also the case of the prosecution that several incriminating weapons and other materials were seized from the Petitioners.

3. To fortify their charge under Section 399/402 of IPC, the prosecution examined seven witnesses of which P.W.5, the I.O. and P.W.4, an independent witness to seizure are of significance. Several documents were adduced on behalf of the prosecution and marked as Exts.1 to 4, and eighteen material objects (M.Os.) were also exhibited.

Neither oral nor documentary proof was adduced on behalf of defense.

Relying on the basis of evidence as adduced and referring to the exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and negating the defence plea of false implication, the learned Trial Court recorded order of conviction under Section 399/402 of IPC and directed the Petitioners to undergo R.I. for a period of four years on each count with a further stipulation that the sentences are to run concurrently.

4. The appeal of the Petitioner having been dismissed by the judgment dated 09.01.2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.15/160 of 1999/02, the present Criminal Revision has been preferred.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the State places on record the instruction received from I.I.C. Anandapur P.S. indicating that Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 5 (Sri Krushna Chandra Das @ Senapati, Maheswar Naik, Muralidhar Mahanta respectively) have passed away on the dates indicated therein. Copy of the said instruction is taken on record.

6. Since there is no motion on their behalf for continuance of the revision, the CRLREV stands abated against the said Petitioners and the present

Criminal Revision is confined to Petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 6.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are gaping holes in the case of the prosecution, which were brought out in the evidence of the official witnesses, however ignoring the same and adopting the theory that P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are responsible high officials of the police department, the order of conviction is recorded.

8. To substantiate such submission, the attention of this Court is drawn to the cross-examination of P.W.1 with regard to the place of occurrence and that the Petitioners, who are the accused persons, were detained even before the raiding party arrived at the designated spot, as per the prosecution.

9. It is apt to note that the same was confronted to P.W.5, the I.O., and in the factual matrix of the case at hand, referring to the spot map (Ext.4), it is submitted with vehemence that the distance between the bus stand and the river bed is 500 meter, which is material in the circumstances and has not been taken into account by the learned Trial Court. Another feature relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae is the evidence of the independent witness, P.W.4, who did not support the prosecution. In the background in which the allegations are levelled against the

Petitioners, and in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the place from where the accused persons were nabbed, it is submitted that the same assumes significance and ought to have weighed with the Courts below in coming to a just conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. It is further submitted that unfortunately the learned Appellate Court did not analyse the evidence on record in its proper perspective and mechanically affirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

Hence, as the appreciation of evidence on record by the learned Courts below is ex facie perverse, the matter merits consideration by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that keeping in view the limited jurisdiction conferred on this Court while considering a revision, microscopic examination of the evidence on record is not permissible. He further submits that it is the settled position of law that merely because an independent witness has resiled, the same ought not to dilute the case of the prosecution.

12. This Court, keeping in view the contours of revisional jurisdiction as enjoined, has carefully

examined the evidence on record and, on such examination, taking into account the evidence of P.W.5, is persuaded to hold that there has been perverse appreciation of evidence on record by the learned Trial Court, which has not been considered by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, taking into account the evidence on record, this Court is persuaded to hold that the perversity in appreciation is tell-tale, warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

13. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence are hereby set aside.

14. The bail bond(s) stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.

15. The Criminal Revision along with I.As, if any, stand disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th of March, 2026/Santoshi

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack