The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.807 of 2025 Suresh Chandra Pradhan …. Appellant Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Respondents Mr. Jateswar Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. 01.
Decision
ORDER 25.07.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the informant Suresh Chandra Pradhan challenging the judgment and order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T. (S) Case No.26 of 2020 in acquitting the respondent no.2- Babu Sethi of the charges punishable under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant being the informant presented a written report before the Inspector in-charge of Khamar Police Station stating therein that he along with his deceased elder Page 1 of 5 brother Ramesh Chandra Pradhan and his family members were staying in their house which is situated at Upper Sahi of the village. The deceased was unmarried and after taking dinner, he used to go to the old house situated at Tala Sahi of his village for sleeping. There was some land dispute between the family of the informant with one Bhismaraya Parida. On 23.07.2020, at about 7.00 A.M., the appellant got the information that the deceased was lying in bleeding condition in the old house. Immediately he rushed to the spot, found the deceased sustained bleeding injury at three to four places on his head. Immediately, the appellant shifted him to the C.H.C., Khamar in an Ambulance for treatment and during the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellant suspected that due to the previous enmity with the family of Bhismaraya parida, they might have murdered the deceased. On the basis of such written report presented by the appellant, Khamar P.S. Case No.128, dated 23.07.2020 was registered for the offences punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead body, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and found prima facie case against the respondent no.2 and on completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against him. Page 2 of 5 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty two witnesses. The learned trial Court considered the materials, oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and came to hold that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the only circumstance that is available against the respondent no.2 is the recovery of an axe on the basis of the statement made by the respondent no.2 under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned trial Court came to hold that basing on this piece of evidence, it cannot be said the chain of circumstance is so concrete so that it can unerringly point out the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, though it was held that the deceased met a homicidal death, but in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence so also absence of any cogent motive on the part of the respondent no.2 committing the offence, the learned trial Court found the respondent no.2 not guilty of the offences charged. Accordingly, acquitted the respondent no.2 of all the charges. The findings given by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 are quoted herein below: “13. With these evidence on record in absence of direct evidence and prosecution could not link the chain to connect the involvement of this accused in the alleged crime except his statement recorded U/s 27 if Indian Evidence Act, in view of allegation against another person for prior enmity, it is not safe to conclude that the accused is the author of the crime. Again though prosecution has tried to substantiate its case through a piece of confessional statement recorded by the 1.0 U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but fail to substantiate the due to Page 3 of 5 contradiction among witnessed leading to recovery of weapon of offence. the witnesses who had No evidence could be substantiated by the prosecution how without any clue and when there smell of involvement of the accused either in the FIR or any of CSWs whispered about the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime, the lO could apprehend him and got successful to record his statement U/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act with a very interesting concocted story of sorcery after five days of incident. 14. Furthermore in view of the argument advanced by the counter parties and on perusal of the case record it is found that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature and ante-mortem one but prosecution has failed to substantiate a single scrap of paper to substantiate therein that the accused has caused the crime in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence and on the other hand defence has brought home to the record regarding series of possibility of the cause of death of the deceased as it is specifically brought from the mouth of the I.O that the deceased was involved himself in Sorcery at Kalamati Deogarh so also in view of named FIR about the suspicion of involvement of one Bhismaraya Parida, previous enmity with the family of Bhismaraya Parida as they might have murdered his elder brother Ramesh Chandra Pradhan of the informant. Again in absence of any direct evidence or circumstantial evidence only on the basis of a confessional statement before the I.O U/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act which is not more than a confessional statement as that of statement recorded U/s 24 of Indian Evidence Act, conviction cannot lie. Hence callousness haphazard investigation of the I.O, I am of the considered opinion that, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence I found the accused is not guilty of the alleged offences U/s 302/201 IPC.” and the for Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that except leading to discovery of the axe, there is no Page 4 of 5 other material against the respondent no.2. Unless it is established that the seizure of the axe has got any link with commission of the crime, mere recovery is not sufficient to convict an accused under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda –Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1622 wherein in paragraph 217 it has been held as follows: “217. In view of the fact that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and further in view of the fact that two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. XXX “ We find that the learned trial Court is quite justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. There is no perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Judge (S.S. Mishra) Subhasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 25-Jul-2025 19:15:18 Page 5 of 5