Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. K. SAHOO, CHITTARANJAN DASH, JJ.
Rankanidhi Nayak and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRA No. 193 of 1997, CRA No. 47 of 1998
Decided On : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. D. P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Bini Mishra & Ms. Anwesha Mishra, Mr. D. Panda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aurobindo Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel.

The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts as reliable evidence supporting the charges under Sections 302 and 9(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 341, 34 - Indian Explosives Act - Section 9(b) - Appeals against conviction for murder - Appellants were charged with murder and possession of explosives - Evidence included eyewitness accounts and medical confirmation of murder - Conviction upheld due to consistency in testimonies and corroborative medical reports - Appellant acquitted due to lack of evidence - Satisfied that the appeals do not merit interference. (Paras 50-54)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - The inconsistencies in witness statements are minor, do not affect the reliability of testimony, and should not preclude conviction - The court upholds the principle that witness variances must not undermine overall testimony. (Paras 26-28)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 - The Appellants were given ample opportunity to explain the charges - No material prejudice caused by the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Paras 46-47)

Table of Content
1. details of the appeals and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. overview of the prosecution case and evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. defense arguments against the prosecution case (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's analysis of eyewitness accounts (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. expectations regarding consistency in testimony (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. assessment of evidence reliability and witness behavior (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
7. relationship between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. addressing contradictions and witness reliability (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
9. the role of inquest reports in establishing facts (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. procedural safeguards during trial (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
11. court's determination of culpability and sentencing (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
12. final disposition of appeals (Para 54)

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.1997 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.20/122 of 1995/1992 and S.T. Case No.21/246 of 1995/1995. By the said judgment, the Appellants, namely, Rankanidhi Naik, Madhaba Pradhan, Kalu @ Durjodhan Pradhan, Abhi @ Rabi Pradhan, Kishore Chandra Pradhan, Dandu Pradhan, Subal Pradhan, Goli @ Golakha Pradhan, Bidhubhusan Patnaik, Harihar Pradhan, Ladu Kishore Kar and Madhu Pradhan, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 341 /302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 9(b) of the Indian EXPLOSIVES ACT .

2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the Appellants, it is necessary to notice how the present Appeals came to be preferred. Two separate Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.07.1997 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.20/122 of 1995/1992 and S.T. Case No.21/246 of 1995/1995. Criminal Appeal No.193 of 1997 has been filed by accused–Rankanidhi Nayak, Madhaba Pradhan, Dandu Pradhan, Subala Pradhan and Kalu @ Durjodhan Pradhan, whereas Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1998 has been filed by accused–Goli @ Golakha Pradhan, Bidhubhusan Patnaik, Harihar Pradhan, Kishore Chandra Pradhan, Abhi @ Abhimanyu Pradhan, Ladu Kishore Kar and Madhu @ Manu Pradhan.

3. Since both the Appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 30.07.1997, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No.193 of 1997, unless otherwise indicated.

4. Before the Appeals were taken up for hearing, it was reported that Appellants, namely, Bidhubhusan Pattnaik, Harihar Pradhan, Abhi @ Abhimanyu @ Rabi Pradhan and Ladu Kishore Kar in CRA No.47 of 1998, and Appellant Madhu Pradhan in CRA No.193 of 1997 had expired. Consequently, the Appeals stood abated as against them. However, since the near relatives of Appellant No.6 – Ladu Kishore Kar (CRA No.47 of 1998), namely his wife Haramani Kar and son Sachidananda Kar, expressed their intention to continue the Appeal, the same is being prosecuted at their instance.

5. Accordingly, the present judgment is confined to the surviving Appellants, namely Rankanidhi Nayak, Madhaba Pradhan, Dandu Pradhan, Subala Pradhan and Kalu @ Durjodhan Pradhan in CRA No.193 of 1997, and Goli @ Golakha Pradhan and Kishore Chandra Pradhan in CRA No.47 of 1998.

6. With the surviving Appellants thus identified, it is next necessary to advert to the nature of charges framed against them. Two sets of charges were framed by the learned trial court. While Appellant Rankanidhi Nayak faced an individual charge under Section 302 IPC, all the Appellants together, including Rankanidhi Nayak, faced charges under Sections 341 /302/34 IPC and Section 9(b) of the Indian EXPLOSIVES ACT . The accused having pleaded not guilty, the trial proceeded against them.

7. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the learned t