[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Satyajit Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha on 22 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1998
An appeal from the judgment and order dated 26.09.1998
passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial
No.47 of 1997.
---------------------
Satyajit Mohapatra ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Akash Bhuyan
Advocate
For Respondent: - Mr. Sarat Ch. Pradhan
Addl. Standing Counsel
Criminal Appeal No.290 of 1998
Bijaya Kumar Rout ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Akash Bhuyan
Advocate
For Respondent: - Mr. Sarat Ch. Pradhan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Addl. Standing Counsel
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
---------------------
Date: 28-Jul-2025 10:52:51
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 1 of 29
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 22.07.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Bench: Satyajit Mohapatra and Jogeswar Suna were the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1998 and Bijaya Kumar
Rout and A. Jagadiswar Rao were the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No.290 of 1998. Appellant Jogeswar Suna in Criminal
Appeal No.252 of 1998 and appellant A. Jagadiswar Rao in
Criminal Appeal No.290 of 1998 expired during the pendency of
appeals and as such, as per order dated 10.09.2024, the criminal
appeals have been directed to be abated in respect of those
appellants. Thus Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1998 survives only in
respect of appellant Satyajit Mohapatra and Criminal Appeal
No.290 of 1998 survives only in respect of appellant Bijaya
Kumar Rout.
All the four i.e. Satyajit Mohapatra, Jogeswar Suna,
Bijaya Kumar Rout and A. Jagadiswar Rao faced trial in the Court
of learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.47 of
1997 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter „I.P.C.‟) on the
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 2 of 29
accusation that on 29.10.1996 at about 1.00 p.m. at Sundargarh
Bus Stand area, in front of Debasis Lodge, in furtherance of their
common intention, they committed the murder of Amiya Das
(hereinafter „the deceased‟). The appellants were also
additionally charged for the offence under section 307 read with
section 34 of the I.P.C. on the accusation of attempting to
commit murder of M.D. Suresh Purty (P.W.1), the informant in
the case and for the offences under sections 25/27 of the Arms
Act on the accusation that they were found in unlawful
possession of fire arms i.e. pistols and also they have used fire
arms i.e. pistols which resulted in the death of the deceased.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 26.09.1998 found the appellants guilty of the
offences charged and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for
life for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for seven years each for the
offence under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to be run
concurrently. Appellants Bijaya Kumar Rout and A. Jagadiswar
Rao were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five
years each for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act,
which was directed to run concurrently along with the sentences
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 3 of 29
awarded for the offence under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, as per the oral report of P.W.1
M.D. Suresh Purty submitted before Bijaya Kumar Nayak
(P.W.18), S.I. of Police, Town P.S., Sundargarh on 29.10.1996,
while he was undergoing treatment in the District Headquarters
Hospital, Sundargarh, in short, is that he was the driver of the
vehicle of the deceased bearing registration no. OR-05A 1867.
On 27.10.1996 (Sunday) morning, he brought the deceased and
P.W.8 Ahindra Kumar Adhya in the car from Rourkela to
Sundargarh and both the deceased and P.W.8 stayed in room
no.32 of Debasis Lodge. They had come in connection with a
murder case to Sundargarh Court. On 28.10.1996, P.W.1 took
both of them to Sundargarh Court and after the Court work was
finished, he brought them back to Debasis Lodge. On
29.10.1996, again he took them to Sundargarh Court at about
10.00 a.m. and they returned to lodge at 12.00 noon and at
about 1.00 p.m., the deceased decided to return to Rourkela and
accordingly, P.W.1 brought the luggage from the room of the
lodge and loaded the same in the car and sat in the driver‟s seat.
At first, P.W.8 came and sat in the left side of rear seat and five
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 4 of 29
to seven minutes thereafter, the deceased came and he was
trying to sit to the right side of the rear seat and at that time,
someone suddenly fired gunshot at his right side chest and the
told, "you killed my father Ananta Rout so also killed my brother
and assisted in the acquittal of the culprits in that case. I am his
son. I will not spare to you." After such threatening words, they
again came to assault P.W.8 and when P.W.1 got down from the
car and came to the rescue of the deceased, he was caught hold
off by the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout from his back. Out of the
three other culprits, who were there with the appellant Bijaya
Kumar Rout, one of them tried to kill P.W.1 and assaulted P.W.1
on his head by means of a sharp cutting weapon. At that time,
the deceased was shouting, "Bijaya Rout shot me. I am going to
die. Please save me". When the persons of the locality rushed
near the car, the culprits fled away leaving their car bearing
registration no. OR-E 510 as the driver was not there in the car
and he had left the car seeing the incident for which the culprits
finding no other alternative, ran towards Rourkela road. The
people congregated at the spot and someone in his car took the
deceased as well as the informant (P.W.1) to the hospital, but by
the time they reached at the hospital, the deceased had already
expired and there was bleeding injury from his chest and from
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 5 of 29
the back. It is further stated in the first information report that in
connection with the murder case of the father of appellant Bijaya
Kumar Rout, there was hostility between the parties and for such
reason, the incident took place. The dead body of the deceased
was lying on the varandah of the hospital. It is stated that four
persons participated in the crime and one of them was appellant
Bijay Kumar Rout.
On the basis of the oral report submitted by P.W.1,
P.W.18 (I.O.) reduced the same into writing and sent the same
to the I.I.C. for its registration and accordingly, the I.I.C.
registered Sundargarh Town P.S. Case No.120 dated 29.10.1996
under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections
25/27 of the Arms Act against the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout
and three others.
The I.I.C. directed P.W.18 to continue the
investigation and accordingly, P.W.18 proceeded to the spot for
apprehending the accused persons directing the constable U.N.
Laria (P.W.14) to guard the dead body of the deceased. On
reaching at the spot, he came to know that the S.P. and other
police officers and public were chasing the accused persons and
accordingly, he proceeded in the same direction and in course of
chase, P.W.18 apprehended the appellants at different parts of
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 6 of 29
the Subalaya Jungle at about 2.45 p.m. and brought them to the
hospital. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased
and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.3. P.W.18 then
dispatched the dead body of the deceased for post mortem
examination, examined the witnesses including P.W.1, the
informant, who is also an injured in the case and was undergoing
treatment in the hospital. The statements of the appellants
Bijaya Kumar Rout, A. Jagadiswar Rao, Satyajit Mohapatra and
Jogeswar Rao were recorded under section 27 of the Evidence
Act as per Exts.19/1, 20/1, 21/1 & 22/1 respectively. As per the
statement of appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout, one pistol (country
made) was seized from Subalaya Jungle containing one empty
cartridge in its barrel, one country made six chamber revolver
(M.O.III) containing one empty cartridge and two numbers of life
cartridges in its chamber, one life cartridge of pistol having a
firing pin mark and other life cartridge of a pistol containing no
sign of firing pin mark as per seizure list Ext.23/1. On the basis
of the statement of appellant A. Jagadiswar Rao and at his
instance, one country made pistol with white wooden grip
(M.O.IV) containing one life cartridge was recovered from inside
the bush as per the seizure list Ext.24/1. Similarly, on the basis
of the statement of appellant Jogeswar Suna and at his instance,
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 7 of 29
one plastic yellow handle barber razor (M.O.V) and one spring
knife with a handle of red and black print (M.O.VI) were
recovered inside the bush and seized as per seizure list Ext.25/1.
Similarly, on the basis of the statement of appellant Satyajit
Mohapatra and at his instance being led by him, one iron Bhujali
fitted with a wooden handle (M.O.I) was seized from inside the
bush leading towards Rourkela as per seizure list Ext.26/1.
P.W.18 seized one Ambassador Car bearing registration no.OR-
E-510 in front of Debasis Lodge as per seizure list Ext.4. On
29.10.1996, P.W.18 sent the appellants Bijaya Kumar Rout, A.
Jagadiswar Rao and Jogeswar Suna for their medical
examination. P.W.18 also seized Ambassador Car bearing
registration no.OR-05A 1867 of the deceased as per seizure list
Ext.6/1. P.W.18 sent requisition to D.F.S.L., Rourkela for
deputing a Scientific Officer to come to the police station to
examine the seized cars, the spot and the weapons of offence
and he also seized one bullet of a pistol after being produced by
one constable from the doctor having collected from the dead
body of the deceased as per seizure list Ext.7/2. P.W.18 sent the
bullet (M.O.IX) and wearing apparels of the deceased i.e. shirt
(M.O.VII) and banion (M.O.VIII) to the R.F.S.L., Sambalpur for
examination through Court. Thereafter, P.W.18 forwarded the
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 8 of 29
appellants to the Court on 30.10.1996. On 31.10.1996, P.W.18
made a prayer to the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh to conduct
T.I. parade in respect of the appellants. He also seized the
register of customers i.e. entry and exit of the Debasis Lodge
vide Ext.5. P.W.18 seized the Bhujali (M.O.I) and sent the same
to the doctor for examination and opinion and on the same day,
he received the injury reports of the appellants, who were sent
for their medical examination. P.W.18 sent the seized articles to
R.F.S.L., Sambalpur through learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh for
examination and received the C.E. report vide Ext.32. P.W.18
released the seized vehicle in the zima of one Surendra Das as
per Zimanama Ext.33. After receipt of post mortem examination
report, P.W.18 made a query to the doctor regarding possibility
of the injury by bullet shot noticed on the deceased. P.W.18 also
released the seized vehicle (OR-E 510) in the zima of P.W.15 as
per Zimanama Ext.34 and released the register of Debasis Lodge
in zima of P.W.4 as per Zimanama Ext.35 and he received the
sanction order of the District Magistrate to prosecute the
appellants under the Arms Act and on completion of
investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellants
on 24.01.1997.
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 9 of 29
Framing of Charges:
3. After submission of charge sheet, following due
procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Session
where the learned trial Court framed charges as aforesaid and
since the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prove their
guilt.
Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits & Material Objects:
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
as many as eighteen witnesses.
P.W.1 M.D. Suresh Pusty is the informant in the case
and he is an eye witness to the occurrence. He supported the
prosecution case.
P.W.2 Kunu Tripathy is a hearsay witness and P.W.5
Srimanta Kumar Panda is a post-occurrence witness. They partly
supported the prosecution case for which they were declared
hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.3 Soumen Barik is a witness to the inquest over
the dead body of the deceased Amiya Das as per inquest report
marked as Ext.3.
P.W.4 Shaktipada Jena & P.W.17 Suresh Chandra
Prusty are the witnesses to the seizure of one Ambassador car
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 10 of 29
bearing registration no.OR-E 510 and one register of the Debasis
lodge vide Exts.4 & 5 respectively.
P.W.6 Viku Oram was the Gramarakhi of Sundargarh
Town P.S. He is a witness to the seizure of one gold ring, pant
and shirt as per seizure list Ext.7.
P.W.7 Raju Ghasi & P.W.9 Pradeep Kumar Sahu are
the witnesses to the seizure of one shirt and one banion of
deceased as per seizure list Ext.2.
P.W.8 Ahindra Kumar Adhya is an Advocate, who had
been to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in connection
with a case matter along with the deceased. He is an eye witness
to the occurrence and supported the prosecution case.
P.W.10 Gopal Chandra Patnaik, the S.D.J.M.,
Sundargarh conducted test identification parade in respect of the
appellants inside the Headquarters District Jail, Sunargarh and
proved his report vide Ext.9.
P.W.11 Dr. Manorama Satapathy was the Asst.
Surgeon attached to Dist. Headquarters Hospital, Sundargarh,
who examined P.W.1 and proved her report vide Ext.12. She
also proved her opinion report vide Ext.13.
P.W.12 Dillip Kumar Mishra was the Assistant
Surgeon attached to District Headquarters Hospital, Sundargarh,
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 11 of 29
who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased
Amiya Das and proved his report vide Ext.14.
P.W.13 Prasanta Kumar Pradhan was the Scientific
Officer attached to District Forensic Science Laboratory,
Rourkela, who submitted his report vide Ext.16 after taking
photographs of the chance finger prints found on the body of the
car bearing registration no.OR-05A 1867 and also took the finger
prints of all the appellants and sent it to the Director of Finger
Print Expert, Bhubaneswar for comparison. He also examined the
seized fire arm, cartridges and advised the I.O. to send it to
Director, RFSL, Sambalpur for ballistic examination. He proved
his reports vide Exts.17 & 18.
P.W.14 Udayanath Laria was the constable attached
to Town P.S. Sundargarh, who escorted the dead body of the
deceased Amiya Das for post mortem examination and after the
post mortem was over, he brought the wearing apparels of the
deceased and produced it before P.W.18. He is a witness of the
seizure of one full shirt, one banion, one full pant and a chadi of
deceased as per seizure list Ext.7/2.
P.W.15 Birsa Oram and P.W.16 Pradeep Kumar Sahu
pleaded their ignorance about the case for which they were
declared hostile by the prosecution.
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 12 of 29
P.W.18 Bijaya Kumar Nayak was the Sub-Inspector
of Police attached to Town police station, Sundargarh and he is
the Investigating Officer in the case.
The prosecution exhibited thirty nine documents.
Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list in respect of one shirt
and ganji of P.W.1, Ext.3 is the inquest report, Ext.4 is the
seizure list in respect of one car bearing regd. No.OR-E 510,
Ext.5 is the seizure list in respect of register of one Debasis
Lodge, Ext.6/1 is the seizure list in respect of one car bearing
regd. No.OR-15A 1867, Ext.7/2 is the seizure list in respect of
one gold ring, pant and shirt of deceased, Ext.8 is the S.R.
summons issued to P.W.1, Ext.9 is the T.I. parade report, Ext.10
is the statement of P.W.15 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
by P.W.10, Ext.11 is the statement of Ranjan Kumar Das
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by P.W.10, Ext.12 is the
injury report submitted by P.W.11, Ext.13 is the opinion report of
P.W.11, Ext.14 is the post mortem report, Ext.15 is the query
report of P.W.18, Ext.15/1 is the report of P.W.12, Ext.16 is the
spot visit report of P.W.13, Exts.17 & 18 are the examination
reports of P.W.13, Ext.19/1 is the confessional statement of
appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout, Ext.20/1 is the confessional
statement of appellant A. Jagadiswar Rao, Ext.21/1 is the
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 13 of 29
confessional statement of appellant Satyajit Mohapatra, Ext.22/1
confessional statement of appellant Jogeswar Suna, Ext.23/1 is
the seizure list in respect of M.O.II and M.O.III, Ext.24/1 is the
seizure list in respect of M.O.IV, Ext.25/1 is the seizure list in
respect of M.O.V and M.O.VI. Ext.26/1 is the seizure list in
respect of M.O.I, Ext.27 is the dead body challan, Ext.28 is the
command certificate, Ext.29 is the copy of V.H.F. message,
Ext.30, Ext.33, Ext.34 & 35 are the Zimanamas, Ext.31 is the
office copy of forwarding report of S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, Ext.32
Chemical Examiner‟s report, Ext.36 is the sanction order, Ext.37
is the statement of P.W.15 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.,
Ext.38 is the statement of P.W.16 recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. and Ext.39 is the report of finger print expert.
The prosecution also proved nine material objects.
M.O.I is the bhujali, M.O.II is the revolver, M.O.III and M.O.IV
are the pistols, M.O.V is the razor, M.O.VI is the spring knife,
M.O.VII is the shirt, M.O.VIII is the banian and M.O.IX is the
bullet.
Defence Plea:
5. The defence plea of the appellants is of complete
denial to the prosecution case. The appellant Satyajit Mohapatra
took a specific stand in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement that while he
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 14 of 29
was returning from tuition at about 9.00 p.m. on 29.10.1996 at
Rourkela, he was caught and brought by the police and he could
not assign any reason why he had been implicated in this case.
Similarly, the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout took a stand in his
313 Cr.P.C. statement that he was taken to the hospital where
P.W.1 was undergoing treatment and therefore, P.W.1 could be
able to identify him in the T.I. parade. He also took a stand that
while he was in his house at Rourkela, he was brought in the
night of 29.10.1996 and falsely implicated in the case as his
father was not pulling on well with the deceased Amiya Das. He
also took another stand that the deceased was one of the
accused in the murder case of his father and after his acquittal
from that case, he was killed by somebody but the police instead
of apprehending the real killer, implicated him in the case.
Findings of the Trial Court:
6. The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record, came to hold
that the deceased had died a homicidal death and considering
the evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.W.1 so
also P.W.8 and the identification made by P.W.1 in the T.I.
parade, which was conducted by P.W.10 and the leading to
discovery of the weapons of offences, found the appellants guilty
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 15 of 29
of the offences charged under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout along with A.
Jagadiswar Rao were additionally found guilty under section 27
of the Arms Act.
Contentions of the parties:
7. Mr. Akash Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in both the appeals argued that so far as the appellant
Satyajit Mohapatra in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1998 is
concerned, there is absolutely no material on record against him
relating to his involvement in the crime. Neither his name finds
place in the first information report as an accused nor he has
been identified in the T.I. parade nor have any of the two eye
witnesses uttered his name at the time of identification in Court.
The only material available on record against the appellant
Satyajit Mohapatra is that, at his instance, Bhujali (M.O.I) was
recovered by the I.O. (P.W.18), which on chemical examination
was found to be containing human blood but the grouping could
not be ascertained as it has been deteriorated and no link
between the seizure of Bhujali (M.O.I) and the crime was
established and therefore, the conviction of appellant Satyajit
Mohapatra is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further
argued that so far as the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout is
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 16 of 29
concerned, the learned trial Court has mainly relied upon the
evidence of P.W.1 but the specific defence plea is that the said
appellant was shown to P.W.1 before the T.I. parade and
therefore, the test identification parade conducted by P.W.10 lost
all its sanctity and the learned trial Court should not have relied
upon the same. Learned counsel further argued that it is a fit
case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the
appellant.
Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha, on the other hand,
supported the impugned judgment and argued that not only the
name of appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout finds place in the first
information report as the deceased uttered his name to be his
assailant, which can be used as dying declaration but also he
was identified in the T.I. parade so also in Court by P.W.1 and
the link of appellant Satyajit Mohapatra with the crime has been
established with the recovery of iron Bhujali fitted with wooden
handle (M.O.I) at his instance from inside the bush, which was
used in the crime and therefore, it is not a case to interfere with
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and as such the
appeals should be dismissed.
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 17 of 29
Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death?:
8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, let us first examine the
evidence on record as to how far the prosecution has
successfully proved that the deceased met with a homicidal
death.
P.W.12 conducted the post mortem examination over
the dead body of the deceased Amiya Das on 29.10.1996 in
District Headquarters Hospital, Sundargarh and he has noticed
the following injuries:
External injuries:
"i. There was one entry wound lacerated in
nature of the size of 1.5 c.m. x 5 c.m. x chest
cavity, 2 c.ms. medial to the right nipple of the
chest. The margins of the wound were inverted.
Blood coming out from the wound on movement
of the body;
ii. There was one exist wound which was
lacerated of the size of 7.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. x chest
cavity over the back on the left side 2" posterior
to the mid posterior axillary line. The margins of
the wound were everted and blood was coming
out of the wound on movement of the body.
Upon opening the chest, the whole chest cavity
was found to be filled with fluid blood. There
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 18 of 29
was fracture of the fourth rib interiorly on the
right side corresponding to wound no.1 and
bone chips were present under the wound. The
right auricle of the heart was lacerated and also
the left ventricle of the heart was lacerated.
Both the chambers of the heart were empty. The
left lung was lacerated at the lower lobe region.
There was also fracture of the 7th rib at the back
on the left side corresponding to injury no.2.
Multiple bone fragments were present below the
wound. There was laceration of the adjacent
muscle near the wound no.2. All the abdominal
visceras were intact and normal. The stomach
was full of food particle. The bladder was empty.
The scalp, skull and vertebra were intact and
normal. The brain and spinal cord were intact
and normal."
The doctor opined the cause of death was due to
shock and hemorrhage due to injury to the vital organs like heart
and lungs due to fire arm injury. He further opined that all the
injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course of nature. He proved the post mortem
examination report vide Ext.14.
The I.O. (P.W.18) also made a query to the doctor
(P.W.12) regarding the possibility of the injuries of the deceased
by the bullet and the doctor (P.W.12) has opined that the
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 19 of 29
injuries were possible by bullet and proved the query report vide
Ext.15/1.
Nothing has been brought in the cross-examination
to demolish the evidence of P.W.12. In fact, learned counsel for
the appellants has not challenged the findings arrived at by the
doctor (P.W.12) in his post mortem report (Ext.14).
In view of the post mortem report (Ext.14), inquest
report (Ext.3) and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.12) so also
eye witnesses account, we are of the humble view that the
learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the
deceased met with a homicidal death.
Assessment of evidence of eye witnesses P.W.1 and
P.W.8:
9. The two star witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution are P.W.1 M. D. Suresh Purty, the informant of the
case and P.W.8 Ahindra Kumar Adhya and they are the eye
witnesses to the occurrence.
P.W.1, the informant has stated in his evidence that
he had taken the deceased and P.W.8 in a car to Debasis Lodge
and then from Debasis Lodge to Court premises and he was
staying in room no.35 of the Debasis Lodge and on the date of
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 20 of 29
occurrence, he was sitting in the driver‟s seat inside the car and
P.W.8 was sitting in the rear seat in the left side and deceased
came from the lodge to the left side of the car and when P.W.8
told him to sit in the right side, the deceased was going to sit on
the right side and at that point of time, somebody fired on the
chest of the deceased and he found that the appellant Bijaya
Kumar Rout was standing and fired on the chest of the deceased
by a revolver. At that time, the deceased shouting "MAA LO
MOTE BANCHAO, BIJAYA ROUT MOTE GULI MARILA" and then
the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout assaulted the deceased on his
head by the revolver on the left side. He further stated that
when he caught hold of appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout, the
appellant A. Jagadiswar Rao dealt Bhujali (M.O.I) blow on his
head and when at that point of time, other persons came
running to the scene of occurrence, on seeing them, the accused
persons left the place and went near the car. He further stated
that the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout told him that "MO BAPA KU
MARITHILA, MORA BHAI KU MAREI DELA, COURT RE MUDULA
MANANKU KHALAS KAREI DELA, MU TARA PUA BIJAYA ROUT, MU
TATE CHHADIBI NAHIN" and at that point of time, the driver of
the car in which the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout had come was
not there and he had gone somewhere and the accused persons
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 21 of 29
ran towards Rourkela. He further stated that T.I. parade was
conducted in which he identified the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout
so also the appellant A. Jagadiswar Rao. He also identified them
in Court.
In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that
appellant Bijay Kumar Rout fired bullet from the revolver keeping
it on the chest of the deceased who was standing close to the car
door. He further stated that he did not know the appellant Bijay
Kumar Rout or Satyajit Mohapatra earlier prior to the
occurrence. He further stated that there were many shops near
the place of occurrence, however no shopkeeper or outsider
came to the place of occurrence. He further stated that many
outsiders came to the place of occurrence before he was shifted
to the hospital. He further stated that he saw the accused
persons on the day of occurrence and thereafter he saw them in
the T.I. Parade and thereafter in Court on the date of deposition.
He stated that he had not given the description and features of
the accused persons who had taken part in the occurrence in his
F.I.R. and statement.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.8, he has stated
about the occurrence but he stated that he did not know any of
the appellants and he has not even participated in the T.I.
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 22 of 29
parade. The prosecution has offered no explanation as to why he
was not taken as an identifying witness to identify the suspects.
Therefore, from his evidence though it is proved that an
occurrence had taken place on 29.10.1996 at about 1.00 p.m. in
front of Debasis Lodge and the deceased sustained fire arm
injury so also P.W.1 sustained injuries on his person by a sharp
cutting weapon but the identity of the culprits has not been
established from his evidence.
Appellant Satyajit Mohapatra (CRA No.252 of 1998):
10. The appellant Satyajit Mohapatra in CRA No.252 of
1998 was found guilty under sections 302/307/34 of I.P.C.
The evidence of P.W.1 is completely silent against
him. Neither has he stated anything against appellant Satyajit
Mohapatra in the F.I.R. nor in his evidence. P.W.1 was examined
by the doctor (P.W.11), who has noticed one incised wound of
size 4" x 1" x 1" fracturing the outer table of the right parietal
bone in its whole length transversely near the parietal suture and
opined the injury to be grievous in nature and it could have been
possible by sharp cutting weapon. The police sent one iron
Bhujali (M.O.I) for her opinion regarding possibility of the injury
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 23 of 29
sustained by P.W.1 by such weapon and P.W.11 has given her
opinion in affirmative.
Therefore, the presence of P.W.1 on the scene of
occurrence cannot be doubted as he is an injured witness.
However, when none of the two eye witnesses have implicated
the appellant Satyajit Mohapatra in connection with the crime
and though he was placed in the T.I. parade but not identified
and even the deceased had not uttered his name in the dying
declaration at the spot and the only evidence available against
him is the seizure of Bhujali (M.O.I) at his instance as deposed
to by the I.O. (P.W.18) and from the said Bhujali (M.O.I), though
human blood was found but the grouping could not be
ascertained due to deterioration, in view of such evidence on
record, we are of the humble view that since the prosecution has
failed to establish any link between the seizure of Bhujali (M.O.I)
with the crime in question, on the basis of such evidence, the
learned trial Court should not have convicted the appellant under
sections 302/307/34 of the I.P.C.
Most peculiarly, the learned trial Court while arriving
at the conclusion of the guilt against the appellant Satyajit
Mohapatra, has held that when the Bhujali (M.O.I) was
recovered at the instance of the appellant Satyajit Mohapatra
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 24 of 29
and the evidence of P.W.1 disclosed that he was assaulted with
M.O.I by the appellant A. Jagadiswar Rao, the same can only be
considered to be a mistake committed on confusion and as such,
no serious notice of the same can be given. We are not inclined
to accept such reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court
inasmuch as P.W.1 was there at a close distance from the
assailant and identified his assailant to be the appellant A.
Jagadiswar Rao and he has also identified appellant A.
Jagadiswar in the T.I. parade and also in Court during trial and
therefore, the learned trial Court seems to have made out a third
case by convicting the appellant Satyajit Mohapatra.
We are of the humble view that the conviction of the
appellant Satyajit Mohapatra under sections 302/307/34 of the
I.P.C. in absence of any cogent material on record is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is liable
to be set aside and as such, he is acquitted of all the charges.
Appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout (CRA No.290 of 1998):
11. The appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout in CRA No.290 of
1998 was found guilty under sections 302/307/34 I.P.C. read
with section 27 of the Arms Act.
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 25 of 29
Apart from the fact that P.W.1 has named him in the
F.I.R. on the basis of dying declaration made by the deceased,
he also identified him in the T.I. parade so also in Court while
deposing and his evidence that the bullet shot was fired by the
appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout is getting corroboration from the
medical evidence adduced by the doctor (P.W.12), who
conducted the post mortem examination. At his instance, the
revolver (M.O.II) and the bullets were seized. The contention of
the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant Bijaya
Kumar Rout was shown to P.W.1 in the hospital for which he
could be able to identify him in T.I. Parade, is based on no
evidence rather P.W.1 specifically stated in the cross-
examination that after the occurrence, he saw the appellant in
the T.I. Parade and then on the date of deposition in Court which
rules out showing the appellant to him in the hospital. We are of
the humble view that the learned trial Court has rightly found
him guilty under section 302/307/34 of the I.P.C. so also under
section 27 of the Arms Act is quite justified. The submission of
the learned counsel for the appellants that other persons present
in the scene of occurrence have not been examined to depose
that the appellant participated in the crime, cannot be a ground
to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 as it is quality of evidence
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 26 of 29
and not quantity of evidence which is material. Quantity of
evidence was never considered to be a test for deciding a
criminal trial and the emphasis of Courts is always on quality of
evidence. Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not provide for
any particular number of witnesses for proving any fact and it
would be permissible for the Court to record a finding regarding
any particular aspect of the prosecution case on the evidence of
a solitary witness, if his evidence is found to be credible, reliable,
in tune with the case of the prosecution and inspires implicit
confidence. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-
inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the
mind of the Court. Moreover, testimony of the injured witness
stands on a higher pedestal than other witnesses and reliance
should be placed on it unless there are strong grounds for
rejection of his evidence. In view of the foregoing discussions,
we have no hesitation to accept the evidence of P.W.1, the
injured eye witness as truthful to convict the appellant Bijaya
Kumar Rout.
Conclusion:
12. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1998 in
respect of appellant Satyajit Mohapatra is allowed. The appellant
Satyajit Mohapatra is acquitted of the charges under sections
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 27 of 29
302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, who is on
bail by order of the Court, is hereby discharged from liability of
the bail bonds and the surety bonds shall also stand cancelled.
Criminal Appeal No.290 of 1998 is dismissed. The
conviction of the appellant Bijaya Kumar Rout under section
302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms
Act and the sentence passed thereunder stands confirmed. The
appellant was directed to be released on bail vide order dated
20.01.2004 in Misc. Case No.174 of 2003. His bail bonds and
surety bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender before the
learned trial Court within fifteen days from today to serve out the
sentence awarded by the learned trial Court which is confirmed
by us, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take appropriate
steps for his arrest and send him to judicial custody.
The trial Court records with a copy of this judgment
be sent down to the Court concerned forthwith for information
and compliance.
Before parting with the case, we would like to put on
record our appreciation to Mr. Akash Bhuyan, Advocate for both
the appellants rendering his valuable help and assistance
towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. This Court
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 28 of 29
also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided by
Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel.
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
…………………………………
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 22nd July 2025/Sipun/Rajesh
Criminal Appeal Nos.252 & 290 of 1998 Page 29 of 29
[ad_2]
Source link