IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, SASHIKANTA MISHRA, JJ.
Rameya Sethi And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No. 36 of 1999, CRA No. 5 of 2000
Decided On : 12-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and offenses. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. description of the events leading to the attack. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. prosecution case and evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. counsels' arguments for both sides. (Para 8) |
| 5. analysis of witness credibility and findings. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's reasoning regarding witnesses' testimony. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. examination of evidence consistency and motives. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. clarification on weapon recovery and its relevance. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. conclusion on motive and evidence weight. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 10. final judgment reasoning. (Para 24) |
| 11. conclusion and order of appeals. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Both these appeals, though filed against separate judgments, arise out of the same incident and were heard together. As such, both appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants in CRA No. 36 of 1999 faced trial in SC Nos.142/98 and 244/98 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 and 307/149 of IPC . They were convicted by judgment dated 11.01.1999 for the aforementioned offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /149 and R.I. for 5 years and 2 years respectively for the offence under Sections 307 /149 and148 of . The sole appellant in CRA No.5 of 2000 faced trial in SC No. 369 of 1998 for committing the offences under Sections 302 /149 and 307/149 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur. He was convicted vide judgment dated 07.12.1999 for the said offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under /149 and R.I. for 5 years under /149 and 2 years under Section of 148 .
It is pertinent to note that the appeal in respect of appellant No.2- Narayan Ghadei and appellant No.5-Ashok Kumar Naik in CRA No. 36 of 1999 has abated due to their death during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Prosecution case, briefly stated, are as follows:
The accused persons led by Rameya Sethi were in the habit of eve-teasing one Bishnupriya Behera, daughter of Prakash Behera (deceased) by making indecent comments. The girl having complained to her father, he started taking her to the College on his scooter every day. On 21.09.1997, the accused persons went to the house of the deceased and threatened Bishnupriya and her mother that the deceased would be killed if he interfered. On the next day, some of the accused persons led by Rameya Sethi came to Dhanamera Sahi, abused the family members of the deceased as well as people of the locality and posted red flags in front of the house of the deceased declaring that Bishnupriya is reserved for Rameya Sethi. When the relations of deceased protested, Rameya threw a bomb causing injury to Suresh Behera. Then Ugrasen dealt a sword blow on Tutu Behera causing bleeding injuries. The matter was reported at Badabazar Police Station and a case was registered. The injured persons were admitted to the hospital for treatment. On 23.09.1997 at about 10 p.m. when the deceased, Nunu Pujari, Runa Behera and Sunil Nayak were returning on cycles after giving food to the injured persons in the hospital, they were attacked by the accused persons, who had concealed themselves behind some cabins on Corporation Road of Sriram Nagar. They were armed with deadly weapons like kati, bhujali, sword, iron rod etc. They first attacked Nunu Pujari and Prakash Behera. Rameya dealt bhujali blows on the neck of Nunu Pujari. Nunu and Prakash fell down from the cycle. Then Kailash Ghadei dealt a sword blow on the backside of Nunu Pujari and Narayan Ghadei also dealt a sword blow on the right arm of Nunu Pujari. When the deceased protested and requested them not to attack, Rameya Sethi caught hold of him and dragged him to one side and asked the other accused persons to kill him. All the accused persons thereafter hacked the deceased. Seeing this, Nunu Pujari and others fled
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the nature of injuries inflicted.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and grievous hurt, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing guilt.
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.