JCRLA No.79 of 2005 Page 1 of 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

JCRLA No.79 of 2006

Sarathi Banichor

….

Appellant

-versus-

State of Orissa

….

Respondent

Advocates, appeared in these cases:

For Appellant

:

Mr. Purna Chandra Behera

Advocate

For Respondent

:

Mr. J. Katikia,

Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

JUDGMENT

06.05.2022

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 5^th June 2006

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T.

No.74 of 2005 convicting the Appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI for a further two years.

2. It must be mentioned at the outset that the Appellant was

enlarged on bail by an order dated 23^rd February 2010 passed by

this Court. A report was sought from the concerned IIC about the

whereabouts of the Appellant. By a letter dated 7^th February 2021,

JCRLA No.79 of 2005 Page 2 of 9

the Officer-In-Charge (OIC), Harabhanga P.S. confirmed that the

Appellant is alive and residing in his village and he is able to

perform his daily works.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12^th June 2005 at 10 PM

while the Informant Dasarath Banichor (P.W.1) who happens to

be the uncle of the Accused, was discussing with his son-in-law

Hemanta Bagarty (P.W.5) on his verandah, his younger brother

Krushna Banichor, the deceased, was taking his meal. The

Accused Sarathi Banichor was sleeping on a cot in front of the

house. After finishing food when the deceased Krushna went to

wash his hands, the Accused suspecting that they were discussing

against him, suddenly dealt a blow with a piece of wooden stick

on the forehead of Krushna Banichor. Krushna received bleeding

injuries and fell down. Though they administered water, Krushna

could not be revived and died on the spot.

4. After arrest of the accused and completion of investigation, a

charge sheet was led against him for the offence under Section

302 IPC. The Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. On

behalf of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined. The

defence adduced no evidence. This was a case based on eye-

witness testimony. P.W.3, the widow of the deceased was the key

witness for the prosecution. P.W.5, the son-in-law of the

Informant was the other important witness.

5. The trial court found that the eye-witness testimony of P.W.3

was completely corroborated by the medical evidence in the form

JCRLA No.79 of 2005 Page 3 of 9

of P.W.2 who conducted the postmortem of the deceased.

Although the deceased, the accused and the informant were

closely related and staying in close proximity, the testimonies of

these witnesses were held to be trustworthy and consistent.

Accordingly, it was held by the trial court that the prosecution had

proved the guilt of the Appellant-Accused beyond all reasonable

doubt.

6. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. Purna Chandra

Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. J.

Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the

State.

7. This being a case of direct evidence, the eye-witness testimony

is of utmost importance. The Court therefore takes up for

discussion first the evidence of P.W.3, the widow of the deceased.

The accused was the nephew of P.W.3. The Informant (P.W.1)

was the elder brother of her husband. She clearly stated that in the

month of Jestha about eight months previous to the date of

deposition, P.W.1 had called them and the son-in-law after the

death of his wife to discuss how the funeral ceremony expenses

were to be shouldered. In the night, while the Informant