Babu Das vs State of Orissa - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3306

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Sashikanta Mishra, JJ
Babu Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
CRLA No. 316 of 2003

Important Points

A conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a related witness when such evidence is contradicted by other witnesses, lacks independent corroboration, and the prosecution fails to prove the authorship of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Subject

Criminal Law - Murder Appeal

Act Referred

Code of Criminal Procedure: S.374(2), S.164
Indian Penal Code: S.302, S.294, S.341, S.323

Headnote

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of an individual alleged to have practiced witchcraft. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two witnesses; however, the primary eye-witness (PW-11) turned hostile, and the testimony of the deceased's son (PW-12) was found to be contradictory to that of PW-11 and lacked independent corroboration. The trial court convicted the appellant by disbelieving the plea of alibi and relying on the medical evidence and the testimony of the related witness. The court framed the issue around whether the evidence of a single related witness, when contradictory to other evidence and lacking independent support, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The ratio decidendi is that where ocular evidence is unreliable due to material contradictions and the discovery of the weapon lacks independent corroboration, the prosecution fails to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit must accrue to the accused. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of conviction dated 31.10.2003 is set aside.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.R Mohanty
For the Respondents: Suvalaxmi Devi

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court proceedings and the facts leading to conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding the reliability of related witnesses and hostile testimony. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. evaluation of contradictions between witness testimonies rendering them unreliable. (Para 9)
4. medical evidence can prove the nature of death but not the authorship of the crime. (Para 10)
5. failure of prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. setting aside of the conviction order and discharge of bail bonds. (Para 14)

An application under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Chatrapur, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2002/ Sessions Case No. 525 of 2002 (GDC)]

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appellant, Babu Das, faced trial in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2002/ Sessions Case No. 525 of 2002 (GDC) in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chatrapur for committing the murder of one Natabara Gouda. By judgment dated 31.10.2003, he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows.

On 28.05.2002 at about 6:00 P.M., the deceased Natabara Gouda, a resident of village Saru and known for practising ‘Jhada Phunka’, was taken by PW-11 Bijaya Behera to village Punarakhandi for treating his ailing daughter. After performing ‘Jhada Phunka’ while he was returning to his village on a bicycle with the deceased being seated on the rear carrier, the accused intercepted them near Majhi Sahi Chhaka of village Saru. It is the case of the prosecution that suspecting that the deceased had practised witchcraft against him and his brother, the accused dealt blows to the deceased by means of a lathi. Out of fear, PW-11 fled away from the spot leaving behind the bicycle and the deceased and informed PW-12, son of the deceased, about the incident. Hearing this, PW-12 came to the spot and found that the accused was dragging and assaulting his father towards Bauri Sahi. The deceased thereafter fell down near the backyard of the house of one Ashok Das and succumbed to the injuries.

PW-12 lodged the FIR, on the basis of which P.S. Case No. 59(14) of 2002 was registered under Sections 302/294/341/323 IPC followed by investigation. During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, conducted the inquest and examined the witnesses and the accused was subsequently arrested. While in police custody, he gave a statement leading to discovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., lathi. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. The plea of the accused was of complete denial. The accused additionally took the plea of alibi that he was not present in his village on the day of occurrence but was present in his in-laws’ village.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited twenty-one documents. That apart, prosecution also proved six material objects. Defence, on the other hand, examined only one witness.

5. After analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court was of the view that the prosecution was able to establish the charge against the accused. It held that that PW-11, who had accompanied the deceased stated about the accused intercepting and assaulting the deceased. The evidence of PW-12, who reached the spot immediately after being informed, was found to be natural and trustworthy as he had seen the accused dragging and assaulting the deceased. Also, the evidence of these witnesses finds due corroboration from the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The plea of alibi taken by the accused was disbelieved on the groun