SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 277

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Karnain Sattar, Advocate, Ms. Bharati Dash, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate

Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 - Conviction for murder, attempted murder, and rioting - Accused persons were convicted for life imprisonment for murder and other related offenses resulting from a violent altercation arising from eve-teasing. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Evidentiary Standards - Court ruled that eyewitness accounts are credible despite minor contradictions, emphasizing that the evidence of injured witnesses holds greater weight. (Paras 12-13)

(C) Prior Enmity - Previous incidents of violence and threats were significant to establish motive, and the presence of prior bad blood negated claims of false implication. (Paras 22-23)

Facts of the case:
The convictions arose from a violent attack on the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries from sharp weapons, tied to ongoing harassment of the victim's family concerning their daughter. (Paras 2-8)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's conviction due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, including consistent eyewitness testimonies. (Paras 24)

Issues: The main issues were the reliability of eyewitness accounts, potential contradictions in their testimonies, and prior enmity serving as motive for the attack. (Paras 10, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the testimonies were credible and that eyewitness accounts, especially from injured witnesses, should not be dismissed for minor discrepancies; previous enmity indeed provided motive for the attack. (Paras 12-24)

Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld, and accused taken into custody to serve their sentences.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top