Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha on 10 March, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi, G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015
(Both the Appeals U/S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 arise out of the same judgment dated
13.03.2015 passed by Shri Janab Mohammed Ajmal,
learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. Case No.133
of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.160 of 2011
corresponding to Doraguda P.S. Case No.72 of 2011 of
the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada).
Chaitan Jhadia ... Appellant
(In CRLA No.229 of 2015)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent
Anta Majhi ... Appellant
(In CRLA No.230 of 2015)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
(In CRLA No.229 of 2015)
Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate
(In CRLA No.230 of 2015)
For Respondent : Ms. G. Patra, Addl. PP
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :28.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:10.03.2025
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these two appeals arise out of one
and same judgment, the same are heard together and
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 1 of 14
disposed of by this common order with the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Appellants by these two appeals have
challenged the judgment dated 13.03.2015 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. Case
No. 133 of 2011 convicting Chaitan Jhadia and Anta
Majhi (hereinafter referred to as, “the Appellants”) for
commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 302/34 of IPC
and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment
for life, while acquitting them of other charges.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
appellant-Anta Majhi had married to the deceased out
of their courtship just one month prior to 11.07.2011,
but he was constantly pressing the deceased to bring
gold articles as dowry. However, the deceased did not
return to her father’s house and halted at Sargiguda
on her way back, but the appellant-Anta fetched her
and on the pretext of taking her back on the following
day morning on 11.07.2011, he took the deceased to
the outskirts of village Sargiguda, where he was joined
by appellant-Chaitan and both of them raped the
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 2 of 14
deceased and assaulted savagely by shoving an iron
rod into her vagina resulting in her death, but they
hanged her from a tamarind tree to give an impression
that the deceased had committed suicide.
3.1. On this incident on 11.07.2011 at about 10
P.M., the father of the deceased-cum-PW.1 reported
the matter under Ext.3(FIR) to PW.13, who in absence
of regular IIC, registered Doraguda P.S. Case No. 72
of 2011 and took up the investigation of the case by
visiting the spot on the following day in the morning
and conducting inquest over the dead body under
Ext.5. PW.13 had also complied all the other
formalities of the investigation by examining the
witnesses, making seizure of the wearing apparels of
the deceased and rope and on 21.07.2011, she(PW13)
also arrested the appellants-Anta Majhi and Chaitan
Majhi. Accordingly, on completion of investigation
charge sheet was submitted against both the
appellants for commission of different and common
offences.
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 3 of 14
3.2. On finding prima facie material, cognizance
was taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Kashipur, who
committed the case record to the Court of Sessions,
who after finding sufficient materials proceeded
against the appellants by framing charge against them
for commission of offences U/Ss.376(2)(g)/302/34 of
IPC and in addition, for offence U/S. 304-B of IPC
against appellant-Anta Majhi. Accordingly, the trial
proceeded and the prosecution in support of the
charge examined altogether 15 witnesses, exhibited
around 11 documents under Exts.1 to 11 and
identified material objects under MO-I & II as against
no evidence whatsoever by the defence. The plea of
the defence in the course of trial was denial simplicitor
and ignorance.
4. After appreciating the evidence on record
upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court by
relying upon the evidence of PWs.6 & 7, last seen
theory and medical evidence comes to a conclusion
that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death and
the appellants are responsible for causing death of the
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 4 of 14
deceased. The learned trial Court, however, did not
find any evidence against the appellant-Anta Majhi for
committing dowry death and against the appellants for
committing gang rape and accordingly, extended the
benefit while acquitting the appellants for the said
charges. Being aggrieved with their conviction for
offence U/S.302/34 of the IPC, the appellants have
preferred this appeal.
5. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr.
S.K. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the appellant-
Chaitan Jhadia has submitted that the learned trial
Court has erroneously placed reliance on the evidence
of PWs.6, 7 & 11 in convicting the appellant, but the
evidence available on record never establishes the
guilt of the appellant-Chaitan Jhadia for any offence,
since the evidence does not reveal any motive or
intention on the part of the Appellant for commission
of crime. It is, however, further submitted by Mr.
Bhanjadeo that even if the evidence on record are
taken into consideration, it can be well said that PW.12
the witness to the last seen theory had neither uttered
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 5 of 14
the name of Appellant-Chaitan Jhadia nor had PW.7
stated anything against him for committing murder of
the deceased and no last seen theory can be pressed
into service for convicting the Appellant-Chaitan
Jhadia, since PW.12 has not stated anything against
the Appellant-Chaitan Jhadia. Accordingly,
Mr.Bhanjadeo has submitted that the Appellant-
Chaitan Jhadia being innocent of the offence may
kindly be acquitted of the charges.
On the other hand, Mr. Biswajit Nayak,
learned counsel for appellant-Anta Majhi has
submitted that not only the evidence of PW.7 is not
reliable, but also the role of the Appellant in the crime
has not been established by the prosecution by any
admissible evidence, but the learned trial Court has
relied upon the evidence of PW.7 as an eye witness to
the occurrence and has convicted the Appellant,
notwithstanding to the fact that PW.7 is not the eye
witness to the occurrence and at best his evidence can
be used to prove against the Appellant for causing
disappearance of evidence and, therefore, the guilt of
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 6 of 14
the Appellant having not been established in any
standard, the learned trial Court should have acquitted
the Appellant, but the Appellant having been
convicted, this Court may kindly invoke the Appellate
jurisdiction to rectify the error by acquitting the
Appellant by allowing the appeal.
5.1 On the contrary, Ms. G. Patra, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor by taking this Court through
the evidence of PWs.6, 7, 11 & 12 has submitted that
not only the deceased was last seen with the
Appellants, but also she has suffered a homicidal
death and, thereby, the Appellants have to explain as
to how the deceased died, but they instead of
explaining the same, have been found by the evidence
of witnesses to have committed the murder of the
deceased as the evidence of doctor implies that the
deceased suffered a homicidal death due to asphyxia
and the evidence of PW.7 transpires that the deceased
was hanged by the Appellants on a tamarind tree by
tying her neck with a rope and, therefore, the
conviction of the Appellants suffers from no illegality.
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 7 of 14
Accordingly, Ms. Patra has prayed to dismiss both the
appeals.
6. After having bestowed an anxious and
careful consideration to the rival submissions upon
perusal of record, since the deceased was stated to
have been murdered, it would be appropriate and
proper to refer to the medical evidence as tendered by
the doctor-PW.14, who in his evidence has made it
clear that on 11.07.2011 on police requisition, he
conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased and found abrasion over posterior aspect of
the body, deep oblique ligature mark around neck as
also protruded tongue in addition to the internal
findings of rupture of uterus, severe internal bleeding
due to rupture of uterus and intestine, haemorrhagic
shock in different parts of internal organs and bleeding
from vagina. According to PW.14, the cause of death
of the deceased was homicidal due to haemorrhagic
shock and asphyxia. The opinion of the doctor as to
cause of death was never challenged by any of the
Appellants except unsuccessfully suggesting to the
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 8 of 14
doctor that the death can occur due to manual self
strangulation. It is, therefore, very clear that the
prosecution has objectively established the cause of
death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature and
that too, due to haemorrhagic shock and asphyxia.
7. It is obviously true that the prosecution
case not only rests on the evidence of eye witness, but
also the evidence of last seen theory. In adverting to
the last seen theory, this Court finds the evidence of
PW.12 to be relevant since the same transpires that
on the relevant day, the Appellant-Anta Majhi called
and took the deceased to the house of Appellant-
Chaitan at Dongasil and on the next day, he came to
know from the villager that the Appellants after
committing rape had killed the deceased. In the cross-
examination of PW.12, it has been elicited that he
called the deceased to go to their house, but the
Appellant-Anta took her by dragging. It is, however,
elicited from the mouth of PW.12 that he has not seen
the Appellant-Chaitan at that spot at the relevant
time, but at this point, the evidence of PW.7 appears
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 9 of 14
to be very much relevant because he is not only an
important witness to the occurrence, but also the
witness to the last seen theory of Appellant-Anta Majhi
with the deceased and his evidence transpires that on
the relevant night before the day of occurrence, the
Appellant-Anta Majhi and the deceased had slept on
the verandah of his house and they left his house at
about 5.00 A.M. early in the morning and at about
5.30 A.M., he had been to Pujaghata Nala of their
village for ablution and found the Appellant-Anta and
the deceased under a mango tree and the Appellant-
Chaitan Jhadia came there with one rope and
thereafter, the Appellants Chaitan and Anta tied the
rope around the neck of the deceased and took her by
lifting to a place under a tamarind tree and the
Appellant-Anta climbed up the tree and Appellant-
Chaitan lifted the deceased by catching of her leg and
Appellant-Anta tied the one end of the rope to a
branch of the tamarind tree while the other end of the
rope was tied to the neck of the deceased and the
deceased was accordingly hanged. The aforesaid
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 10 of 14
evidence of PW.7 is not only important, but also the
main item of evidence against the Appellants and
PW.7 had stood firmly to his evidence in the cross-
examination. It would not be incorrect to say that the
Appellants had made a feeble attempt to contradict
PW.7 by unsuccessfully putting suggestion to him to
have not stated the aforesaid facts before the IO, but
the same had not been confronted to the IO and,
thereby, such effort of the Appellants remained
insignificant. However, it was most important that the
Appellants has elicited from the mouth of PW.7 that
the alleged tamarind tree where the deceased was
hanged is at a distance of 15 cubits from the spot
where he was standing which is not only significant,
but also makes his evidence to have seen the main
part of the occurrence reliable.
8. It is of course true that the Appellants had
tried to make inroad to the evidence of PW.7 by
stating that he has not protested the act of the
Appellants, but in a given situation of like this,
different person may react differently, for example one
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 11 of 14
person may face the incident courageously and protest
the same, but some other person may not be able to
muster courage to protest the criminal action of two
persons in killing a lady and some person may also
remain silent to observe because human instincts of
different people are different. In addition, the evidence
of PW.6 transpires that on the night before the
occurrence, the Appellant-Anta Majhi and the
deceased had slept on the verandah, but on the next
day morning, he did find them to have gone away and
at about 10.00 A.M., the dead body of deceased was
found hanging from a tamarind tree. It is also elicited
from PW.6 in the cross-examination that on the next
day at about 6.00 A.M. in the morning, he woke up
and found Appellant-Anta and the deceased are not
present on the verandah of his house. Here one thing
would strengthen the prosecution case by way of
evidence that PW.7 had seen the Appellants tying the
neck of the deceased and hanging her from a tamarind
tree and the doctor in his evidence has made it clear
that the deceased had suffered homicidal death due to
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 12 of 14
“haemorrhagic shock and asphyxia” which clearly
established that the deceased died of asphyxia and the
aforesaid evidence strongly connect the role of the
Appellant-Chaitan Majhi in the commission of murder
of the deceased. It is, however, argued for the
Appellant-Chaitan that he was neither present at the
spot nor had the intention to kill the deceased and at
best, he can be roped in this case with the aid of
Section 201 of the IPC for disposing the dead body,
but the evidence of PW.7 makes it very clear and
established beyond all reasonable doubts that the
deceased was hanged from a tamarind tree by the
Appellants and both the Appellants had tied the neck
of the deceased with one end of the rope and tied the
other end of the rope to one of the branch of the
tamarind tree by lifting the deceased and in the
process, hanged the deceased, which by itself
suggests the action of the Appellants to have proved
their guilt for committing murder.
9. In the aforesaid circumstance of evidence,
this Court does not find any error in appreciation of
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 13 of 14
evidence by the learned trial Court in convicting the
Appellants for murder of the deceased. Further, the
Appellants having been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life, which is the minimum sentence
prescribed for the offence, no other ground is made
out to interfere with their sentence.
10. In the result, both the criminal appeals in
CRLA Nos. 229 & 230 of 2015 stand dismissed on
contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as
to costs. The impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. Case No. 133 of
2011 are upheld.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. I Agree.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th day of March, 2025/S.Sasmal
CRLA Nos.229 & 230 of 2015 Page 14 of 14