THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Uday Pradhan and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No.438 of 1994
Decided On : 09-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal and convictions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts related to the incident and the investigation (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidence analysis and findings of assault (Para 6) |
| 4. appellants' arguments on conviction and evidence shortcomings (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's decision and modification of sentences (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th of November, 1994 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, in S.T. Case No. 12/271 of 1997, whereby the accused-appellants No.1 and 3 (hereinafter A1 and A3 respectively for brevity) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and accused- appellant No.2(hereinafter A2 for brevity) has been convicted for the offence U/s.324 I.P.C. A1 and A3 have been sentenced to undergo a R.I. for 3 months for offence U/s.323 of I.P.C., whereas A2 has been sentenced for six months for the offence U/s.324 of I.P.C.
2. Heard Ms. Chetna Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Siva Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. In the present case, the criminal law was set into motion upon the lodging of the First Information Report on 20.01.1991 at Sarankul Police Station. It is pertinent to note that, at the time when the learned Trial Court rendered the judgment of conviction, a total of six accused persons had faced trial, of whom three were acquitted of all charges. At that stage, two other accused persons, namely Kalia Mantri and Ula @ Pabitra Pal, were absconding. Consequently, their cases were segregated from the main trial, which has culminated to the impugned order in the present appeal before this Court.
The informant, Bichi Bisoi (P.W.2), along with the injured persons and the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan, are residents of village Dhusuma, whereas the accused persons belong to the adjoining village Sikharpur. According to the prosecution, on 20.01.1991, at about 9:00 A.M., the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan, accompanied by Dinabandhu Bisoi (P.W.4), Bhikari Jena (P.W.6), Surendra Behera (P.W.5), Kumar Bisoi (P.W.7), Udaya Swain, and Syam Behera, had proceeded to the lands situated near the Duanta river within the village of the accused persons for the purpose of collecting green grass. While they were collecting grass from the cultivated land of one Jogi Jena, the present accused persons, along with the absconding accused, allegedly arrived at the spot armed with deadly weapons such as lathis, bhali, farsa, bhusa, and other implements. They questioned the presence of the victims on the land and, upon protest, assaulted the deceased as well as the injured witnesses, causing them to fall to the ground with bleeding injuries. On witnessing the assault, the remaining companions fled the scene to alert the villagers of Dhusuma.
Upon being informed, the informant, father of the injured Dinabandhu rushed to the spot along with several villagers. Manu Jena (P.W.3), who was then engaged in operating a sugarcane crusher situated on the outskirts of village Dhusuma, also proceeded to the location. By the time they reached, they found the deceased Rama Chandra Bhuyan and injured Dinabandhu lying senseless in the field, bearing multiple injuries, while the injured Bhikari remained partially conscious. The injured persons were initially shifted to a nearby mango grove where a sugarcane crusher was functioning, and thereafter transported on cots arranged by the villagers to the Sarankul Hospital.
The Medical Officer at Sarankul Hospital admitted Dinabandhu (P.W.4) and Bhikari (P.W.6) for treatment and referred the deceased to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, owing to his critical condition. At about 8:30 P.M. on the same day, the informant (P.W.2) appeared at Sarankul Police Station and submitted a written report, on the basis of which the Officer-in-Charge registered the present case and took up in
Convictions under IPC affirmed based on corroborated eyewitness testimony; A3 acquitted due to lack of evidence and identification.
Conviction under IPC sections 325 and 323 upheld due to consistent ocular and medical evidence, emphasizing the necessity for robust proof of participation in the crime.
Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not negate the credibility of their core testimony when corroborated by medical evidence.
The court acquitted the appellants on the grounds of benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies and lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused, undermining the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed the conviction for attempt to murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment due to the appellant's age and subsequent conduct, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Appellate courts can modify sentences based on rehabilitation of the offender and time elapsed since the crime while ensuring the conviction is supported by credible evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
Insufficient evidence of intent to kill led to conviction under Section 325 instead of Section 307, emphasizing that mere injury does not establish the necessary mens rea for attempt to murder.
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.