Orissa High Court
Hrudananda Pradhan And Others vs State Of Odisha on 31 July, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.437 of 2009
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Hrudananda Pradhan and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 25.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 83/20 of 2005, whereby the learned trial court while acquitting all the six appellants for the offence under Sections 294/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, convicted them for the offences under Sections 341/324/34 of I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and S.I. for ten days each for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. All sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The learned trial Court also acquitted the co-accused, namely, Tarun Pradhan from all the charges as he was not found guilty of the offences under Sections 341/324/294/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act.
2. Heard Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.06.2004 at about 5:00 PM, while the informant Khetramohan Meher (P.W.5) was standing near Pandaloi Bus Stand, his younger brother Gopiram Meher (P.W.1) arrived at the location on a motorcycle. Suddenly, several accused persons Page 2 of 13 including the present appellants allegedly assaulted Gopiram with deadly weapons such as a sword, crowbar, and wooden sticks (thenga), causing him to fall down. Seeing this, when the informant tried to save his brother, he too was assaulted by the accused persons. Both P.W.1 and P.W.5 were allegedly abused in filthy language containing caste slurs. On the intervention of local people, the situation was brought under control and the injured were admitted to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla for treatment.
4. On receipt of the written report (F.I.R.), the police registered a case under Sections 341/324/294/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA.) Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and they were put to trial, as they took a stand of denial and claim trial.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the injured and P.W.5 was the informant and injured witness. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 P.W.8 were co-villagers, who turned hostile. P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer of this case. No witnesses were examined from the defence side. Certain Page 3 of 13 documents including the F.I.R. and seizure of bed-head tickets were exhibited.
6. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, disbelieved the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 I.P.C. as well as charges under Sections 294/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA.) Act, and acquitted the accused of those charges. However, it accepted the version of P.Ws.1 and 5 and convicted all the appellants (except Tarun Pradhan) under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned trial Court after analysing the entire evidence on record has arrived at the following findings-
"15. For the offence u/s 307, IPC, the intention to cause death is vital and acquires a dominant place over other requirements. Intention may be proved or disproved by the circumstances. Further, the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. The mens rea in committing the specific act by the accused persons must be established before proving the charge u/s 307, IPC. But, from the circumstances of the present case, the intention of the accused persons, to cause death either of the injured persons is not established as neither P.W.1 nor P.W.5 has stated so in their evidence and nothing from their evidences comes out to prove such intention or knowledge of the accused persons. So I am constrained to hold that the accused Page 4 of 13 persons have no intention or knowledge to cause death of either of the injured persons. Hence, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has not established the charge u/s 307. IPC.
16. It appears from the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 5 that while P.W.1 was coming in his motor cycle, all of a sudden the accused persons assaulted him for which, he fell down from the motor cycle. This evidence of P.Ws.1 & 5 also gets support from the F.I.R. story. The place of occurrence, which is a bus-stand, is a public place and, thus, P.W.1 has right to pass and by the assault of the accused persons, P.W.1 was obstructed from proceeding and, therefore, the accused persons have voluntarily obstructed P.W.1 so as to prevent him from proceeding which he has a right to proceed. As such, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused persons except accused Tarun Pradhan u/s 341/34, IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. The F.I.R. story reveals the specific abusive words hurled by the accused persons. To this extent, P.W.1 has stated the specific abusive words and, also, P.W.5 stated the specific abusive words. Those specific abusive words as stated by P.Ws.1 & 5 and the F.I.R. story reveal filthy languages and remark aspersing the caste of the injured persons. The place of occurrence is a bus-stand which is, no doubt, a public place. But both P.W.1 & 5 have not stated anything that due to the hurling of such abusive words by the accused persons, any other person was annoyed. P.W.1 and P.W.5 have also not stated anything that due to hurling of such abusive words any other Page 5 of 13 person present at the spot were annoyed. Therefore, the offence u/s 294, IPC is not established against the accused persons.
18. Similarly, nothing has been brought in evidence by the prosecution that the accused persons intentionally insults or intimidates the injured persons with intent to humiliate them as a member of scheduled caste. Further, it appears from Ext.3 that accused Ajambila Dansena belongs to the scheduled caste community. This fortifies the absence of intention of the accused persons to humiliate a member of scheduled caste community. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the charge u/s 3 (1) (x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. Taking into account the specific participation of each of the accused persons in committing the offence and in the manner it is perpetrated, it is established that, there is a meeting of minds between all the accused persons to commit the offence.
20. From the aforesaid discussions I come to the conclusion that accused Tarun Pradhan is not held guilty U/Ss.341/324/294/307/34, IPC and Sec.3 (1)
(x), S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and the other accused persons are not held guilty for the offences U/Ss.294/307/34, IPC and Sec.3 (1) (x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, and they are acquitted from those offences accordingly.
21. All the accused persons except accused Tarun Pradhan are held guilty for the offences Page 6 of 13 U/Ss.341/324/34, I.P.C. and are convicted thereunder."
7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned findings recorded by the trial court, which lead to the recording of conviction against the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 341/324/34 IPC, the appellants are aggrieved; hence they have preferred the present appeal.
8. In order to appreciate the findings recorded by the trial court, as has been reproduced above, I have carefully gone through the materials available on record, particularly the evidence of the witnesses. In the present case, although eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, but all the independent witnesses, like P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution case, therefore, hinges upon only on the oral testimony of P.W.1, the alleged injured and P.W.5, the informant of the case, who is the brother of the injured. P.W.1 in his testimony has deposed as under;-
"I know all the accused persons of this case. I am Kantia (Harijan) by caste. The accused persons belong to general caste. The occurrence took place on 16.06.2004 at about 5 P.M. on a Wednesday. It took place at Panduloi bus stop. I was coming towards bus stand in my motor cycle. All on a sudden accused Page 7 of 13 Hrudananda Pradhan came and assaulted to the back of my head by means of sword. Accused Pramod Pradhan assaulted to my back by means of crow-bar (sabala), accused Rameswar Patra dealt thenga blows to my back, accused Nilanchal Pradha, Khirod Rout, Ajambila Dansena all assaulted by means of thenga on me. Due to assault I fell down. On intervention of my elder brother Khetramohan Meher he was also assaulted by the accused persons. At the time of intervention by my brother, accused Hrudananda Pradhan rebuked us saying "MAGIHA CHAMAR, GHASIA" and gave threat to cut me into pieces. I sustained bleeding injury on my back and back side of head. I was taken to V.S.S. medical college hospital, Burla for treatment and I was admitted as an in-door patient for a period of two days. Police seized two bed-head tickets belonging to myself and my brother on my production."
P.W.1 was subjected to elaborate cross examination by the defence, but nothing could be elucidated from him to doubt his testimony. His version also stood corroborated with the narration of incident in the FIR, which has been exhibited as Ext.1.
9. P.W.5, the informant in the present case in paragraph-2 of his testimony has stated as under:-
"The occurrence took place on 16.06.2004 at about the evening. At that time I was standing in the hotel of one Purna Chandra Naik situating at Pandoloi Chhak. At that time my brother Gopiram Page 8 of 13 Meher was coming on motor cycle on that way. At that time Hrudananda Pradhan, Nilanchal Pradhan, Pramod Pradhan and Khirod Rout have concealed themselves at the spot and all of a sudden, Nilanchala by means of a crow-bar assaulted on my brother, Gopiram on his back as a result of which Gopiram fell down from the motor cycle. At that time accused Hrudananda was holding a sword, Khirod and Pramod were holding two Adas (thick wooden sticks). Then all the aforesaid persons assaulted on Gopiram saying "MAAGHIA CHHOTA JATI GHASIA MAGIHA AMANARE MICHHA CHORI KESA KARICHHU". Seeing the occurrence I rushed to the spot to save Gopiram but the accused persons also assaulted me saying "MAAGIHA GHASIA CHHOTA JATI TO MARI MARI KARI MARIDEBUTHANE". At that time Ajambila Dansena and others were standing at the spot. then the local people present there had intervened and rescued us and we then moved to the hospital at Rengali, which referred us to Burla, V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. Leaving Rengali hospital we went to Rengali Out Post and then proceeded to Burla. I described the occurrence before the police, who reduced the same into writing and after going through the same I signed thereon. Ext.1 is the said written report and Ext.1/1 is my signature thereon. I was examined by the police during investigation."
This witness was also subjected to elaborate cross examination by the prosecution, but to no advantage for the appellants. Barring the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5, no other witnesses have supported the Page 9 of 13 prosecution version, even the so called eye witnesses have also wriggled out of their version.
10. P.W.7, who was one of the independent witness, on the contrary, has stated that the accused persons had prior dispute with the informant regarding fishing and theft of fish from the village pond. At the time of occurrence he was not present, however, he reached subsequently and came to know that the accused group had some quarrel with the informant's group in the bus stand. The testimony of P.W.7 and other evidence brings to the conclusion that there was a prior enmity between both the groups. It also appears from the conjoint reading of all the evidence that both the groups had a quarrel, as a result of which, P.W.1 got injured. However, which group is the aggressor is not conclusively coming to the fore from the evidence. Interestingly, in the present case the prosecution has not examined the doctor, who has medically examined the victim. In that regard, the I.O. of the case, i.e., P.W.8 in his examination-in-chief in paragraph-3 has stated as under;-
"I sent the injured victims for medical examination to the local hospital and subsequently they were referred to the V.S.S. Medical College and Page 10 of 13 Hospital, Burla. In spite of several efforts made by me to obtain the injury report, I could not be able to obtain the injury from Bula hospital. Ultimately I sent S.I. M. R. Garnaik of Rengali O.P. to obtain the copies of the bed head tickets in respect of both the injured persons namely Khetramohan and Gopiram. Accordingly, he brought the xerox copy of the bed head tickets which were seized by me on 30.06.2004 by preparing the seizure list. Ext.4 is the said seizure list and Ext.4/1 is my signature thereon."
11. From the reading of the evidence of P.W.8 and Ext.4, it cannot be conclusively held as to whether the injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous or simple. Taking into account the entire conspectus of the evidence, as discussed above, I am of the view that the trial court findings in the impugned judgment recording the guilt of the appellants for offence under sections 341/324 IPC is clearly not made out. However, the fact that P.W.1 got injured cannot be denied because the testimony of P.W.1 not only stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.5 but also with the document like Ext.1, the F.I.R. and Ext.4, the bed-head tickets from the hospital etc.
12. In view of the nature of evidence, I am of the view that the appellants are liable to be convicted for offence under section 323 IPC Page 11 of 13 alone. Accordingly, the judgment under challenge stood modified and the appellants are convicted for offence under section 323 IPC instead of the offence under sections 341/324 of IPC. On the count of the conviction under section 323 of IPC, the sentence imposed by the trial court is accordingly liable to be modified. At this stage, Ms. Agnishikha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants have already undergone custody of two months during the trial period. She also submitted that all the appellants were either in their late twenties or early thirties at the time of incident, i.e., in the year 2004. Therefore, at present they are at their early fifties or late fifties and they have already undergone the rigors of the trial for such a long time and the appeal has been pending since 2009. Therefore, at this stage sending them to undergo further sentence to be imposed by this Court would be harsh. Hence she submits that the appellants may be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
13. Having considered the entire features of the case, I could have dealt with the appellants under the Probation of Offenders Act. It has, however, been brought to my notice by Ms. Roy, learned counsel for the Page 12 of 13 appellants that the appellants have already undergone about two months custody, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Therefore, injustice would be compounded if I would now grant the appellants the treatment under the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, while convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 323 IPC, I reduce the sentence to the period the appellants have already undergone. The appeal is accordingly allowed to that extent.
14. The CRLA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 31st July, 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:18:06 Page 13 of 13