The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.90 of 1999 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Rajat Kumar Sahu @ Kumpa ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 18.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Sections 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Sessions Trial Case No.17/255 of 1997/93, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant only for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for another one year. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The criminal law has been set into motion on the adumbrations of the F.I.R., which, inter alia, alleged that on 20.10.1992 in the evening at about 7.00 P.M., Hari Pattnaik (the deceased), who was the son of Sulaxmi Bewa (P.W.1) had been to a shop of one Kirtan Pradhan (P.W.4) by wearing a Wrist watch. The present appellant appears to have teased him watching at the toy watch. Both of them picked up a quarrel and pushed each other. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the appellant dealt with a successive fist blows on his belly and so he shouted saying “Marigali”. On hearing this, the informant (P.W.1) came to the spot and in front of the house of one Bhikari Pradhan, she found her son rolling sleeping in the road having no sense. The informant’s son succumbed to the injuries. On the next day, Nuagaon P.S. Case was registered Page 2 of 13 corresponding to G.R. Case No.419 of 1992. The investigation was carried out. Charge-sheet was filed against the sole appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-appellant took a stance of complete denial, claimed trial. Accordingly, he was put to trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W.1 was the informant of the case, who is the mother of the deceased whereas P.Ws.2 & 3 were the witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 was the shop owner in front of whose shop, the incident has happened. Similarly, P.Ws.5 and 6 were also the villagers, those who claimed to be the eye witnesses. P.W.7 was the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, prepared autopsy examination on the dead body of the deceased on police requisition and P.W.8 is the I.O. of the case. 5. The learned trial Court after threadbare analysis and appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the death of Hari is caused due to the injury in his belly. The successive fist blow given by the appellant has led to the rupture and blood clot in the right lob of liver, which Page 3 of 13 resulted in the death of Hari. The learned trial Court has arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6, which stood corroborated with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7). The learned trial Court summed up its finding as under:- “8. The assault has been made on the belly of the deceased. The P.Ws.4 and 5 have consistently stated that the deceased was rolling on the ground holding his belly and shouted saying “Marigali. But they have not found any visible injuries on the belly of the deceased. The P.W.8 held inquest over the dead body in presence of the witnesses and he ascertained from the witnesses that the death of the deceased was due to the assault. The inquest report is Ext.7. The P.W.7 conducted autopsy examination on the dead body and found as follows:- He found no external injury on the body except one bruise of 5.25 cm present over the upper part and right side of abdomen. On dissection, he found the abdomen cavity was conducted 1.5 liters of blood clot and there was linear rupture 6 cmx 6.5 cm. over the right lob of lever situated vertically. The injury was ante-mortem in nature and could be caused by direct blunt force impact and is sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. The death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury in the liver. He had opined to a querry of the prosecution that if successive fist blows are given on the belly of a person with heavy force, this injury inside the belly is possible. The P.M. examination report is Ext.6. In the cross- examination, he has stated that if person will fall on a blunt object, the bruise of the abdomen is possible and Page 4 of 13 if the impact of the blow on the belly by a projected substance is forceful, then there will be rupture on the liver. 9. Thus from the evidence of P.W.7 it can be seen that if the first blows are given on the belly of a person successively, due to the forceful impact the rupture in the belly is possible. So, there must be evidence to show that the accused has alone assaulted the deceased by fist blows successively, which resulted causing rupture of the belly, which became the proximate cause of his death. Neither P.W.1 nor the P.W.4 have stated that they have seen the accused dealing fist blows to his belly resulting causing of rupture and that became the proximate cause of meeting his death. But, however, although the witnesses have not seen the physical assault, but p.ws.1 and 4 have stated that by the time they reached near the victim found the accused was present there along with others and the deceased was rolling on the ground holding his belly shouting „Marigali‟. At the out set, it can be said that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness for the occurrence of assault. It so far too well settled that in case where the the circumstances from which the conclusion is guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the instant case although there is no evidence to prove that the accused assaulted the deceased by giving fist blows to his belly, but however the deceased was found rolling on the village danda holding his belly soon after the accused picked up quarrel with him on teasing. The defence have proved through the evidence circumstantial evidence nature, is Page 5 of 13 of p.w.4 that at the place of occurrence, there were pig-sticks affixed on the village danda and during tussle the possibility of falling down of the deceased on a pig-stick cannot be ruled out. There is no evidence to show that the accused had any intention to commit murder/homicidal death of the decease while quarreling with him.” 6. On being found the appellant guilty of the offence of homicidal death of Hari caused due to the blow given by the appellant in his belly, however, by recording a detailed reason, the learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that this is not a case of Section 302 of I.P.C. rather there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the murder of Hari, the deceased. Hence, the learned trial Court recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. On that count, sentence was imposed. 7. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has very extensively and minutely read out the evidence of the witnesses and analysed the same to their advantage in great detail. Page 6 of 13 8. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that the appellant who was about 25 years of age at the time of incident had already undergone about one year two months custody. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that the circumstantial evidence brought on record are writ large to knell the culpability of the accused-appellant in the present case. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kajur and another vrs. State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 5627, wherein Panchsheel principle is applied and the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is highlighted. 10. In the light of the submission made by the parties and the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, I have gone through the evidence. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased in her evidence has stated that her son had been to the shop of Kirtan Pradhan (P.W.4) to bring mixture. At that time, Hari was wearing a Toy Wrist watch. On the way, the accused-appellant asked him about the time. He got annoyed on it. The accused along with one Juria and Pabana started quarreling with him. She also stated that she heard about the Page 7 of 13 quarrel. On hearing the same, she immediately proceeded to the spot and saw that the appellant along with Juria and Pabana were assaulting her son Hari (deceased). The occurrence took place in front of the shop of Kirtan Pradhan (P.W.4). In the cross-examination, she has stated that her son, accused-appellant, Pabana and Juria are the playmates and they are friends. In the entire testimony of the informant (P.W.1), she has not stated that she has witnessed the incident and she has also not stated that she has seen the appellant giving any blow to her son in any part of the body much less in the belly of the deceased. P.W.2 is the scribe of the F.I.R., who has proved the F.I.R. as Ext.1 and in the cross-examination, he has stated that he had drafted the heading of the F.I.R. on the instruction of the police but in the body of the F.I.R. has been written on the instruction of P.W.1. P.W.3, who is the witness to the occurrence in his testimony stated that five years back, one night at 8 P.M., when he was purchasing articles from the shop of Kirtan Pradhan (P.W.4) found Haris Chandra (the deceased) was lying on the road and his mother was sitting near him. He was lying at the distance of 30-40 ft. from the shop of P.W.4. Page 8 of 13 On the request of P.W.1, he carried Harischandra to a little distance and went away. This witness has also not stated anything regarding the blow being dealt by the appellant to the deceased. P.W.4, who is the shop owner in front of whose shop the incident had taken place has stated that on the date of incident at about 7 P.M., the deceased Hari came to the shop and at that time, the accused- appellant came there. The appellant teased Hari and so both of them indulged in quarrel. Hari had worn a toy wrist watch, for which, the accused teased him. He drove out both of them from the shop. At a distance of 10 to 15 cubits from his shop, other seven to eight boys came and after some time, Hari shouted saying marigali, marigali. On hearing this, he went to him and saw him lying in the ground holding his belly. His mother (P.W.1) was also found there. Then, he went back. The testimony of P.W.4, who was the shop owner in front of whose shop, the incident happened, has also narrated the incident which is deviated from the original version of the prosecution. He stated that seven to eight boys were also present at the spot. However, he has not stated a single word regarding any of them giving any blow to the deceased. Page 9 of 13 P.W.5, who claimed to be one of the eye witnesses, has only stated that when the mother of the deceased called him loudly, he came out and saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and rolling. He brought the water from the nearby tube well and sprinkled on his face. He with the help of one Abakash lifted the deceased and kept him near the Varandah. After two to three hours, Hari died. This witness has not stated anything regarding any kind of blow being dealt by the appellant to the deceased. Similar is the version of P.W.6. All these witnesses have sustained elaborate cross-examination but their version remains intact. P.W.7, the doctor, who has conducted the autopsy examination of the dead body has found the following injuries:- (i) No external injury was found on the body except one bruise of about 5.25 cm present over the upper part and right side of abdomen. (ii) On dissection of the abdominal cavity, it was found that there was about 1.5 liters blood clot and linear rupture of 6cm. x 6.5 cm. was also found. Page 10 of 13 (iii) It was opined that the injury was ante-mortem in nature and may have been caused by direct blunt force impact which is sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature. (iv) It was also opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injury in the liver. 11. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion as reproduced above. The conclusion drawn by the trial Court appears to be presumptive. True is that, the son of P.W.1 has died of a homicidal death due to the injury sustained by him in his belly as eminent from the testimony of P.W.7, the doctor but at whose instance the injury is caused and who dealt the blow is not coming forth from any of the witnesses, rather the important witness, namely, P.W.4 in front of whose shop, the entire incident had happened has stated that there were seven to eight boys quarreling with Hari. Since the other boys were also there and the appellant alone has been tried for the offence, the probability of the involvement of other boys cannot be ruled out. Nothing is coming forth on record to ascertain Page 11 of 13 the cause of injury in the belly of the deceased which resulted in his death. 12. Although the prosecution has strongly relied upon the circumstantial evidence even by applying Panchsheel principle, no circumstances could be proved against the appellant by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. The strong circumstance, which was cited against the appellant is that the deceased was lastly seen with the appellant quarreling. However, enough evidence has also come on record to suggest that the appellant was not alone with the deceased rather seven to eight boys were also in the company of the deceased when the occurrence had taken place. By analyzing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is evident that none of the witnesses have conclusively stated anything regarding the blow being dealt by the appellant on the belly of the deceased. Although the doctor’s evidence i.e. P.W.7 makes it clear that the death is caused due to the forced impact in the belly which led to blood clot and linear rupture in the belly but the said injury is clearly not attributable to the appellant. This being the entire conspectus of the evidence came on record. I am inclined to interfere with the impugned Page 12 of 13 judgment and order dated 24.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Sessions Trial Case No.17/255 of 1997/93. 13. I have analysed the entire evidence on record in the light of the submission made by the parties in the present case. I am satisfied that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubts. Accordingly, while extending the benefit of doubt, the appellant is not found guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged. 14. Accordingly, the CRA is allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:23:51 Page 13 of 13