Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 16 January, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9385 of 2024
Manoj Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Nayak, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.9386 of 2024
Bana @ Banamali Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Nayak, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10002 of 2024
Konaka Nahak .... Petitioner
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for Informant
Page 1 of 16
BLAPL No.10049 of 2024
Jitendra Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10343 of 2024
Sameer @ Samir Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10577 of 2024
Gopi Gouda .... Petitioner
Mr. Sushil Kumar Patnaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
Page 2 of 16
BLAPL No.10745 of 2024
Manu Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10844 of 2024
Deepak Ku. Nahak @ Deepak .... Petitioner
Nahak
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10845 of 2024
Srikant Pradhan @ Srikanta Pradhan .... Petitioner
@ Basudev
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for Informant
Page 3 of 16
BLAPL No.10886 of 2024
Kumar Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10952 of 2024
Kandha Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.11254 of 2024
Sritam Pahan @ Sritama Pahan @ .... Petitioners
Sonu and another
Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
Page 4 of 16
And
BLAPL No.11433 of 2024
Sudarsan Pahan .... Petitioner
Mr. Achutananda Pattanaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF ORDER:16.01.2025
1.All the petitions, since arise out of Khallikote P.S. Case No.494 dated 16th May, 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.999 of 2024 and further corresponding to S.T. Case No.60 of 2024, are disposed of by the following common order.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocates and other set of counsels for the petitioners, learned counsels for the informant and Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State.
3. Instant petitions are filed seeking release of the petitioners on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.60 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.999 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khallikote on the grounds stated.
4. The petitioners and other accused persons are alleged to be involved in an occurrence dated 15th May, 2024 and having been arrested are in judicial custody from the respective dates. In fact, except three of the petitioners, others were arrested on 16th May, 2024. The petitioner in BLAPL No.11254 of 2024 is in custody Page 5 of 16 from 27th May, 2024, whereas, two others, namely, Kokana Nahaka (BLAPL No.10002 of 2024) and Gopi Gouda (BLAPL No.10577 of 2024) are in custody from 3rd June, 2024 and 4th June, 2024 respectively. From the chargesheet, it is made to reveal that 21 out of 23 accused persons have been arrested and two of them, namely, Manoj Kumar Sahu @ Bablu and Shankar Prasad Pradhan @ Balia are absconding as on 31st July, 2024, the date on which, the chargesheet is filed.
5. A report dated 16th May, 2024 was lodged by the informant, namely, father of the deceased with regard to the occurrence dated 15th May, 2024 by stating therein that the brother-in-law of the deceased son and two to three others had been to affix posters of a political party, which was protested by one of the accused persons, namely, Sudarshan Pahan @ Mandha, who threatened them and the same was intimated to the deceased immediately and thereafter, on the same day at about 8.00 PM, the deceased went to meet the accused above named and asked him as to why affixing posters in the locality was opposed and at that time, the said accused called others and in response 22 to 30 persons gathered there being armed with sword, kati, lathi, etc. and assaulted the deceased and on hearing hullah, he and others rushed to the spot but all were assaulted, as a result of which, they received bleeding injuries and became senseless at the spot, later to which, the village people reached and shifted them to Khallikote CHC and then, MKCG, Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur for better treatment. It is reported that one of the injured, namely, Jitendra Pahan was shifted to Bhubaneswar for further treatment and two others, namely, Abhimanyu Pahan and Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu received the treatment at Berhampur but the deceased, namely, Dillip Kumar Pradhan was declared dead. Upon receiving the report, Khallikote P.S. Case No.414 was registered under Section(s) 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, Page 6 of 16 302 and 149 IPC read with Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and investigation was taken up and at last, it resulted in submission of the chargesheet dated 31st July, 2024. In total, 23 accused persons have been chargesheeted and as earlier stated, two of them were still at large. The petitioners have been alleged of assaulting the injured and the deceased with other accused persons during the incident dated 15th May, 2024 which took place during the evening hours.
6. Learned Senior Advocates and other counsels for the petitioners submits that the alleged occurrence has taken place at a time when injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu and his associates had gone to affix posters during the day time leading to the protest by one of the accused persons, namely, Sudarshan Pahan and thereafter, in the evening, all the accused persons said to have assaulted the deceased and others and as such, there was no pre-plan and pre-meditation to cause murder of the victim, namely, Dillip Pahan and hence, no case under Section 302 IPC is made out. It is submitted that the informant alleged that all the accused persons have participated in the assault but in so far as the blows received by the deceased are concerned, it is alleged to be at the behest of the accused persons, namely, Papu Tarei and Raja Tarei, if at all, the FIR is to be believed. Likewise, the other accused persons, namely, Bablu Sahu and Raja Tarai are responsible in assaulting the injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu and Jitendra Pahan. The contention is that all the injured received no grievous injuries as made to reveal from the medical examination reports on record. It is the submission that even the deceased, namely, Dillip Pahan received an injury though held to be grievous but was on his right forearm. Considering the extent of injures received and the manner in which, it was inflicted upon, the further submission is that the petitioners in the first place have had no intention to cause death of the deceased but Page 7 of 16 committed the overt acts during and in course of the events and for the same, an offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to have been made out. It is contended that the intention was not to commit murder though it may be said that the petitioners had the knowledge about the likely injuries to be caused to the deceased on account of the excess committed by them. Regard being had to the fact that the deceased had been to the spot on his own to confront the accused, namely, Sudarshan Pahan about the incident, which had a taken place during the day time and on the latter's call, other accused persons including the petitioners arrived, it is the contention that there was no pre-plan and all on a sudden, the alleged assault happened, which ultimately resulted in the former's death. It is further contended that for affixing of posters of a political party, the entire incident happened and the petitioners allegedly committed the over acts and in so far as, conspiracy being alleged, the same is a falsehood as the assault was never planned. Considering the fact that the petitioners are locals and supporters of a political party and on account of a dispute over affixing posters in the locality, the alleged occurrence has taken place, it is finally submitted that the investigation since concluded in the month of July, 2024, as all are in custody since the dates of arrest, they should be granted bail subject to any terms and conditions as would be fixed by the Court.
7. On the contrary, such release of the petitioners is strongly objected to by learned counsels for the informant. It is submitted that the petitioners and other accused persons had a plan in mind to eliminate the deceased and his family members for the reason that they had become the supporters of another political party. It is contended that two of the witnesses, namely, Himanshu Pahan and Surendra Pahan have disclosed regarding the intention and plan of the accused persons as all of them had congregated at a place before the alleged incident. That apart, in view of a political Page 8 of 16 rivalry between the deceased and one of the accused persons, namely, Raju Tarei which started during the panchayat election of 2022 for Kaspur Panchayat Samiti and the former had shifted his allegiance to another political party, a plan and conspiracy was hatched to eliminate him and that in mind, the assault was carried out on him and during that time, others also received injuries. Since the deceased has filed an election dispute against his opponent and due to existence of a strained relationship between both, the alleged incident has happened. It is claimed that the accused, namely, Raju Tarei had won the panchayat election held in 2022 and the deceased lost to him for the post of Samiti Sabhya and in that connection, the election was challenged as the latter doubted a foul play having taken place during the counting of votes and again, when he joined another political party, as according to learned counsels for the informant, the accused persons being the supporters of said Raju Tarei hatched the plan and ultimately, perpetrated the crime on 15th May, 2024 and therefore, considering the same, the petitioners should not be allowed to go on bail. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners and other accused persons are administering threat to the family of the deceased, for which, Khallikote P.S. Case No.842 dated 19th October, 2024 has been registered under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) and 61(2) of the BNSS besides Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and therefore, in case they are released on bail, further mischief may be committed by them in view of the fact that there is a threat perception vis-à-vis the family of the informant is still looming large.
8. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State supports the contention of learned counsels for the informant and submits that the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased and injuries caused to others having participated during the incident along with other accused persons. It is submitted that the names Page 9 of 16 of the petitioners have been revealed during the investigation by the informant and others witnesses. Since the names of the accused persons find a mention including specific roles played by few of them in the FIR and as a result of the assault, the deceased after being shirted the Hospital died, the submission is that they should not be enlarged on bail as it is pleaded for. The incident had taken place with the participation of the petitioners fully knowing the consequences and likely injuries to be caused to the deceased and others and hence, considering the materials on record, since a prima facie case under Sections 302 and 149 IPC is proved, at last the contention is that the request for their release on bail even upon closure of investigation should be denied.
9. The Court perused the chargesheet, medical examination reports of the deceased and injured and all the petitioners. In course of investigation, the informant and others have been examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The details of the events, which had taken place during the incident, have been narrated by the witnesses present at the spot. Considering the statements of the material witnesses, the Court finds that there was a strained relationship between the deceased and his opponent ever since 2022. The deceased, as earlier stated, joined another political party during the time of the last general election in 2024, which widened the differences between the two. The investigation has also revealed that Raju Tarei and his supporters had approached the deceased earlier and persuaded him to re-join them but the same did not materialize and such strained relationship between them was apparently the reason for the incident which happened in the morning hours of 15th May, 2024, at the time when one of the injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu and his associates had gone to affix the posters and was opposed by the accused, namely, Sudarshan Pahan and the deceased after being informed about the said incident had been to meet the said accused, who Page 10 of 16 called others and shortly thereafter, the incident happened, when the petitioners and others arrived there being armed. The specific allegation is against three of the accused persons, who said to have assaulted the deceased and named in the FIR by the informant. According to the informant and others, all the accused persons assaulted including Papu Tarei and Raju Tarei, who gave the blows by means of sword. It is further made to reveal from the material on record that the informant, deceased and other injured, who received injures have been assaulted by means of fist blows and kicks as well. The claim of the informant is that the accused, namely, Papu Tarei inflicted one blow which was avoided by the deceased and on being assisted by the accused, namely, Raju Tarei, he gave a second blow to the victim, which landed on his hand. It is submitted that the allegation regarding assault to the deceased is against the above named accused persons only and not the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is a general allegation against all the accused persons with a mention in the FIR and also revealed from the material evidence collected regarding the specific overt acts committed by above named the accused persons including one Bablu Sahu, who said to have assaulted, the injured, namely, Jitendra Pahan and considering the same, the petitioners should be held not to have had any intention or plan to commit such murder. It is alleged that though the intention was not to cause death of the deceased but the petitioners and other accused persons had a common object to eliminate the deceased, hence, committed the crime. The circumstances under which the alleged incident had taken place centres around the strained relationship between the deceased and his political opponent and for the fact that there was a dispute over affixing posters in the locality. The protest was from the side of the other side, when posters of the political party to which the deceased had recently joined and the same was the Page 11 of 16 reason behind the alleged incident. In the aforesaid backdrop, the alleged occurrence took place and as a consequence, an innocent life was lost and it was on account of the mischief and excess committed by the petitioners and other accused persons, which is prima facie established with the submission of the chargesheet. Whether, it was with a common object that the crime was perpetuated by the accused persons is a matter to be thrashed out during trial. Whether, it was a plan and excess without pre- mediation and an incident suddenly happened or that, some of the accused persons only to be responsible for causing death of the deceased, as it is claimed learned counsels for the petitioners, is again matter to be gone into at the time of trial but the fact remains, the petitioners have been chargesheeted for the offences allegedly being responsible for the death on the deceased and causing injuries to others.
10. As far as the seizures are concerned, from the chargesheet, it is made to understand that the weapons of offence have been recovered at the instance of some of the accused persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. All such material evidence has been collected during the investigation as further made to reveal from the chargesheet and connected documents. In so far as the injuries are concerned, all are simple in nature except that of the deceased. The injured, namely, Abhimanyu Pahan received abrasions on the left knee and inner side lip and as per the medical examination report, it might have been caused by hard and blunt weapons. The other injured, namely, Jitendra Pahan though received a cut injury on the right forearm but it was held to be simple in nature. The injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu had one cut injury on the upper arm of the left hand and abrasion on the back side of the head besides an abrasion on the face but all have been found to be simple injuries. As earlier discussed, the deceased had one Page 12 of 16 grievous cut injury on the right forearm revealed at the time of his medical examination. The accused persons except Kalia @ Kalu Charan Pradhan and Kartika Parida did not receive any injuries as made to appear from their medical reports on record. The said two accused persons had stitched wounds of more than two weeks old found at the time their medical examination. As to the post-mortem report of the deceased, on perusal of the same, it reveals that he had four numbers of injury, such as, a stitched wound over the right upper forearm, abrasions over left upper chest, a bruise over left lateral aspects of lower thorax and a super facial cut wound 1 cm below the injury on the forearm. The opinion on the cause of death is that all the injuries to be ante- mortem in nature and the first and third injuries are homicidal could have been caused by a moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon(s) and are sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature, whereas, other two injuries to be simple in nature and not sufficient to cause death and the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of such injuries received and complications arising therefrom. Considering the post-mortem report, it is made to understand that though the first injury was on the upper forearm but coupled up with the third injury on the lower part of thorax found to be homicidal in nature. In fact, the third injury is a parallel bruise present over left lateral aspect of lower thorax and present along the mid-axillary line. It appears that on account of the kicks and fist blows, all received injuries but the one suffered by the deceased with the bruise on the thorax part, it proved to be fatal. In other words, as per the post-mortem report, external injury No.1 and corresponding internal injury No.3 are held to be homicidal and was sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course. The death of the deceased, as stated before, was due to shock and hemorrhage for having received the injuries during the alleged Page 13 of 16 incident. The Court finds that though the deceased received a cut injury, the same is over the forearm. All the injuries received by the deceased and others may be said to have been caused not on any vital parts of the body. However, on account of the cut wound and internal injury No.3, the deceased said to have a homicidal death though the cause of such death is due to hemorrhage and shock. As is understood, the submission of learned counsels for the petitioners is that an offence of lesser degree has been committed by the petitioners and not the one under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC.
11. The petitioners as members of an unlawful assembly committed the excess. Admittedly, injuries have been received by the deceased and others including the informant. Except, the cut injury on the deceased, other injuries are simple in nature. As per the post-mortem report, on account of the injuries received and other complications, the deceased had a death. Considering the circumstances under which the alleged incident had taken place, the petitioners are found to be responsible for the assault on the deceased and five others. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that existence of a common object of such unlawful assembly was whether to cause death of the deceased or otherwise is to be examined at the time of trial. It may be said that the petitioners did have the knowledge that any such excess was likely to cause death of someone during the incident. Whether the common object was to commit the crime with or without or having the knowledge that it was likely to cause death and hence, each one of them to be guilty and thus, liable for the offences, shall have to be looked into and examined in course of trial.
12. As a reminder, the Court recaps the ingredients necessary for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 149 IPC which depends on whether the accused is part of an unlawful assembly Page 14 of 16 and whether, he had shared common object. What a prosecution must prove is that the accused was aware of the offences that were likely to be committed; and he shared the common object with other members of the unlawful assembly. Of course, the same is to be determined during trial, hence, now not to be pre- judged but shall have to be taken cognizance of for a limited purpose while considering bail of the petitioners. As earlier discussed, all injuries found on the person of the injured to be simple in nature. The deceased received some injuries visibly only one with a cut wound on hand held to be grievous correspondingly with an internal injury. As already described, the external injury received by the deceased was apparently on account of assault by the named accused persons. The conduct of the petitioners during the incident plays a part to determine, whether, they had shared the common object. Though two or three of the accused persons allegedly used weapons like sword and others are not and assault was even by means of fist blows and kicks, the same stands corroborated by the medical examination reports on record with all most all injuries except one on the deceased and that too, received on non-vital parts of the body found to be simple in nature. Alive to the above facts, circumstances under which the assault has happened and settled legal position reiterated time and again, a question may be posed, whether, the petitioners are equally responsible for the alleged death of the deceased, when the assault was predominantly by means of fist blows and kicks and considering the majority of the injuries to be simple in nature. But, again, as an abundant caution, the Court, at this stage, refrains itself from concluding one way or the other but it cannot be oblivious of any such conclusion, which may ultimately be arrived at, with the evidence being received during trial. With the above discussions, the Court is of the humble view that the petitioners, who, though, found to have Page 15 of 16 committed the overt acts in course of events and during the incident, which has taken place in the manner described and since are seemingly found not responsible for having used weapons like swords, which is alleged against the named accused persons and that, the injuries found to be not grievous vis-à-vis the victims except the deceased and having been received on not vital parts of the body, should be allowed to go bail with stringent conditions and accordingly, it is ordered.
13. In the result, the petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stand allowed. As a necessary corollary, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.60 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.999 of 2024 corresponding to Khallikote P.S. Case No.494 dated 16th May, 2024 subject to them furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/-(rupees forty thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khallikote, who shall impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, they shall not threaten and cause any harm to the family members of the deceased and tamper with evidence in any manner, whatsoever, on bail. It is made clear that in case of violation of any of the conditions imposed, it shall forthwith entail cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
14. Urgent copy of the order be issued as per rules.
15.(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Jan-2025 17:39:47 Page 16 of 16