Orissa High Court
(1) Saran Panjar Bhoi vs State Of Orissa on 17 March, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.271 of 1995
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
(1) Saran Panjar Bhoi
(2) Sarat Kumar Bhoi
(3) Sridhar Bhoi
(4) Sara Bagarty
(5) Judhistir Bhoi
(6) Gokul Bhoi
(7) Biswajit Bhoi
(8) Kuna @ Ananda Bhoi
(9) Sananda Bhoi
(10) Ajit Kumar Bhoi
(11) Sajit Kumar Bhoi
....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 17.03.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by theappellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the
judgment and order dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. No.269 of 1994, whereby the
learned trial Court convicted them for the offences under Sections
147/148/324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and on that count, they
have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the
offence under Section 148/149 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six
months for the offences under Sections 324/149 of I.P.C. The
sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, no separate
sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C.
2. The present appeal has been pending since 1995. When the
matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the appellants.
Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned counsel,
who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He
has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record,
assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation
Page 2 of 22
for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik,
learned counsel.
3. Heard Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
4. During pendency of the present appeal, it has been reported that
the appellant No.5- Judhistir Bhoi and the appellant No.6-Gokul Bhoi
have expired. Therefore, vide order dated 10.07.2025, the appeal qua
the deceased-appellant Nos.5 and 6 stood abated in absence of any
application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by her legal heirs or
next friend. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is
confined to the other surviving appellants.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,
Gurucharan Banchhor, lodged the F.I.R. alleging that one Fakir
Banchhor had a flower garden situated at Ghasiapada under village
Pardhiapali. On 19.07.1993, the cows belonging to accused Biswa
Bhoi allegedly entered the said garden and damaged some of the
flower plants, which led to a quarrel between Srikar Banchhor and
Biswa Bhoi, during which Biswa is stated to have assaulted Srikar.
Page 3 of 22
Thereafter, Kujari Naik deposited a sum of Rs.11/- with the Ward
Member of village Pardhiapali for convening a village meeting to
resolve the dispute relating to the damage caused to the flower garden
and the alleged assault on Srikar Banchhor. Accordingly, a meeting
was fixed to be held on the evening of 20.07.1993.
It is further alleged that on 20.07.1993 at about 5:30 P.M., all
the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and being armed
with deadly weapons such as lathis, tangi, iron rod and gupti, came
together to Ghasiapada (Pardhiapali) and shouted slogans threatening
to eliminate the Ghasias. Some of the accused persons allegedly
entered the house of Dasarath Banchhor (P.W.2) and forcibly dragged
him out. Accused Panjara Bhoi is alleged to have first dealt a blow
with a tangi on the head of Dasarath Banchhor, but the latter caught
hold of the tangi, as a result of which he sustained an injury on his
hand. When Panjara attempted to inflict a second blow, Fakira
Banchhor (P.W.9) caught hold of the tangi and warded off the blow,
thereby saving Dasarath. It is further alleged that accused Panjara
thereafter snatched a lathi from one of his associates and assaulted
Dasarath Banchhor, causing a fracture to his hand. The other accused
Page 4 of 22
persons also allegedly assaulted Dasarath by means of rods and lathis,
causing multiple injuries.
The prosecution further alleges that Bikal Banchhor (P.W.5),
who came to the rescue of Dasarath, was also assaulted by the
accused persons. Accused Sara Bagarty allegedly assaulted Ramesh
Banchhor (P.W.7) by means of a gupti, causing a bleeding injury.
Accused Kunu and others allegedly dragged Ajodhya Banchhor
(P.W.8) and assaulted him. Sudarsan Banchhor (P.W.6) and several
other residents of Pardhiapali belonging to the Ghasia community
also sustained injuries in the said assault.
It is stated that the informant, after witnessing the occurrence
and being frightened by the incident, left the spot and reported the
matter to the Officer-in-Charge of Ainthapali Police Station, based on
which Ainthapali P.S. Case No.100 of 1993 was registered and
investigation was taken up. During investigation, the Investigating
Officer sent the injured persons for medical examination and seized
one tangi, two lathis, one wooden lathi and one iron rod on production
by Dingar Banchhor (P.W.11). The Investigating Officer arrested all
the accused persons except accused Saran Panjar Bhoi, who
Page 5 of 22
subsequently appeared before the Court. After completion of
investigation and receipt of the injury reports from the Doctor,
charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 307, 323, 324
and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The prosecution witnesses Urmila Banchhor (P.W.3), Dasarath
Banchhor (P.W.2), Sudarsan Banchhor (P.W.6), Ramesh Banchhor
(P.W.7), Ajodhya Banchhor and Bikal Banchhor (P.W.5) are stated to
have sustained injuries in the said occurrence. It has also come on
record that some of the accused persons, namely Sarat Bhoi (appellant
No.2), Sridhar Bhoi (appellant No.3), Saran Panjar Bhoi (appellant
No.1), Gokul Bhoi (appellant No.6) and Sujit Bhoi (appellant No.11),
had also sustained injuries during the incident.
6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has
examined as many as twelve witnesses. Among them, P.W.4 was the
Medical Officer, who examined the injured persons and proved the
medical reports, and P.W.12 was the Investigating Officer, who
conducted the investigation of the case. The remaining witnesses were
Page 6 of 22
residents of village Pardhiapali, including the injured witnesses, who
have deposed regarding the occurrence.
The prosecution has also proved the relevant documentary
evidence, including the F.I.R., seizure list, medical reports and the
spot map prepared during investigation. The tangi, which was alleged
to have been used as the weapon of offence by accused Saran Panjar
Bhoi, has been marked as Material Object-I (M.O.I). It is the
prosecution case that the said tangi was snatched from the hand of
accused Saran Panjar Bhoi by Fakir Banchhor and kept in his house,
which was subsequently seized by the Investigating Officer on
production by Dingar Banchhor, the father of Fakir Banchhor.
In defence, the accused persons have examined two witnesses.
D.W.1 was the Ward Member of village Pardhiapali, and D.W.2 was
the Medical Officer, who examined the injured accused persons on
police requisition and issued the injury certificates, which have been
marked as Exts. A to E.
7. In the present case, twelve accused persons stood charged for
the offences alleged to have committed by them under Sections 147,
148, 294, 452, 307, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 of the
Page 7 of 22
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the
appellants of the charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by arriving at the following conclusion:
“28. As regards the charge u/s.3(2) (v) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, it can be concluded that the accused persons have
not committed any offence under the Indian Penal Code
punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or
more against either the person or property on the ground
that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the accused persons cannot
be found guilty u/s. 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S. T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The point of legal
conviction against the accused persons having been
affirmatively answered in respect of the penal offences
u/ss. 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 I.P.C., it is
needless to record an independent conviction under any
of the minor penal sections of the Special Act which is
punishable with R.I. for six months only, whereas the
offence u/s.324 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment
for three years or fine or both; It is also unnecessary to
record any conviction against the accused persons
u/s.323 read with 149 I.P.C.in view of their conviction
u/s. 324 read with 149 I.P.C.”
8. Learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that against
the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court either for the offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
or for the offence under Sections 294/452/307 of I.P.C., no appeal has
been preferred. Therefore, this Court need not venture into analysing
the evidence to ascertain as to whether the offences are made out or
Page 8 of 22
not. Moreover, the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court as
reproduced above is the right reasoning as has been settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Sahu vrs. State of
Chhattisgarh1, has held as under: –
“10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case
involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is
pari materia as the same also provides that the offence
must be committed upon a person belonging to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention
that it was being done on the ground of caste.”
Relying upon the aforementioned judgment and by analysing
the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this Court concurs
with the findings of the learned trial Court in the aforesaid aspects.
9. Coming to the offences for which the appellants have been
convicted, I have analysed the evidence of the injured witnesses. In
the present case, P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the injured witnesses.
P.W.2 has made specific allegation against the appellant Nos.1 and 8
whereas P.Ws. 3 and 5 have attributed the overt act against the
appellant No.1 only. P.W.6 has taken the name of the appellant Nos.3
and 6. P.W.7 deposed that the appellant No.4 has given a gupti blow
1
S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 6367 of 2023
Page 9 of 22
to his head. Similarly, P.W.8 deposed that the appellant No.11 has
given a blow by a wooden batten to his head, besides that the
appellant No.10 gave an iron-rod blow to his head, and the appellant
No.9 has given a lathi blow to his back.
10. From the evidence of all the injured witnesses, a conclusion
could be safely drawn that none of the injured witnesses have
attributed any overt act to appellant Nos.2, 5 and 7. P.W.4 was the
doctor, who examined the injured persons. He has found that P.Ws.3,
5, 6, 7 and 8 have although received multiple injuries but all the
injuries were simple in nature. However, in so far as the injury
sustained by P.W.2 (Dasarathi Banchhor) is concerned, the doctor
(P.W.4) did not give any opinion rather reserved the opinion pending
further opinion of a specialist. Exts.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were the injury
reports exhibited by P.W.4. The said witness was subjected to
intensive and extensive cross-examination by the defence, but no dent
could be created in his testimony. It is an important aspect seen from
the record that the accused persons in the instant case have also
sustained various injuries. When this aspect was put to the
eyewitnesses, they have completely denied that the accused persons
Page 10 of 22
have even sustained any injuries. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has
deposed that “I have not noticed any injury on the person of accused
Panjara, at the time of occurrence. I saw him for the first time about
10 to 15 days after the incident in the village. I also did not notice any
injury on his person then. The accused persons have not instituted any
case against me and my caste men on the allegation that we assaulted
them on the date and time of occurrence.”
Similarly, P.W.5, another injured witness in his cross-
examination has deposed that “I cannot say if the accused persons
came to our Para to call the Ghasias to attend the meeting. It is not a
fact that just prior to the occurrence we all were heavily drunk. It is
not a fact that when the accused persons called us to attend the
meeting we attacked them with lethal weapons and caused injuries on
their person. It is not a fact that I was armed with tangi and assaulted
the accused Panjar, Sajit, Sarat, Sridhar and Gokul. It is not a fact
that we have assaulted the accused persons causing injuries on their
person. I cannot say if the accused persons have instituted a case
against me and other persons alleging that we assaulted them”.
Page 11 of 22
P.W.8 also in the cross-examination has deposed that “it is not
a fact that we assaulted the accused persons when they came to our
place to call to go to the place of meeting. I have not heard the exact
words uttered by the accused persons while coming near the house of
Dasarath. Accused Panjar, Sajit, Sarat, Sridhar and Gokul had not
sustained any injury during the occurrence. I cannot say if any case
has been instituted against me and others concerning this occurrence.
I have been released on bail in a case soon after this incident. I
cannot say if other accused persons assaulted me after I fell down
senseless.”
11. From the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses, it is very clear
that all of them in unison have stated that the accused persons have
not sustained any injuries in the incident. On the contrast, when the
I.O. of the case i.e. P.W.12 was put to a question by the Court, he
stated as under:-
“To Court:-
I could not ascertain from the P.Ws. as to how the accused
persons sustained the injuries during the occurrence.
Prior to this case I had also investigated case and counter
cases. Although I was aware of the fact that P.Ws. not
explaining the injuries sustained by the accused persons
during the occurrence would amount to material
suppression, I did not mention those facts in the C.D. as
the said episode is likely to go against the prosecution.”
Page 12 of 22
The I.O. (P.W.12) has clearly admitted that the accused persons
have sustained injuries and stated that the prosecution witnesses have
materially supressed those facts. To further substantiate their case, the
defence led their independent witnesses, namely, D.W.1 and D.W.2.
D.W.1 was the Ward Member of the village, who deposed that there
was a quarrel between both the groups in the village concerning the
damage to a flower garden and both sides have attacked each other.
D.W.2 was a doctor, who was posted as the Assistant Surgeon
attached to the District Headquarter Hospital, Sambalpur. He deposed
that on the police requisition, he examined Sarana Panjar (appellant
No.1), Sarat Bhoi (appellant No.2), Sridhar Bhoi (appellant No.3),
Gokul Bhoi (appellant No.6) and Sajit Bhoi (appellant No.11). He
pointed out that different injuries have been sustained by the
aforementioned accused persons. For the purpose of better
appreciation, the injuries sustained by each of the accused persons as
deposed by D.W.2 and Exts.A to E are mentioned hereinabove:-
“On 20.7.93, I was working as the Asst. Surgeon attached
to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur. That day
at 10.02 P.M., I examined injured Sarat Bhoi on police
requisition and found the following injury on his person:-
i) Abrasion 3″ x 1/2″ on the middle of the left arm obliquely
situated.
Page 13 of 22
The injury is simple in nature and might have been
caused by blunt weapon. The duration of the injury would
be within 6 hours. Ext. A is the medical certificate. Ext. A/1
is my signature and Ext. A/2 is the police requisition.
2. Same day at 9.40 P.M., I examined Sridhar Bhoi on
police requisition and found the following injuries on his
person:-
i) Lacerated injury 2″ x 1″ x 1/3″ over the right tempro-
parietal area (Injury was bleeding).
ii) Abrasion 1/3″ x 1/4″ over the lateral part of right
clavicle.
Both the injuries are simple in nature. Injury No.(i)
might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas
injury No.(ii) might have been caused by blunt weapon. The
duration of both the injuries would be within 4 to 6 hours.
Ext. B is my certificate, Ext. B/1 is my signature and Ext.
B/2 is the police requisition.
3. On the same day at 9.30 P.M. I examined injured Sarana
Panjar Bhoi on police requisition and found the following
injuries on his person:-
i) Lacerated injury 5″ x 1/3″ x 1/4″ present over the right
fronto parietal area (bleeding).
ii) Abrasion 1″ x 1/2″ x 1/3″ over the left frontal area.
Injury No. (ii) is simple in nature.
Opinion in respect of injury no. (i) is reserved
pending radiological examination of the injured at the
V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla. Both the injuries
might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and their
duration shall be within 4 to 6 hours. Ext. C is the medical
certificate, Ext. C/1 is my signature and Ext. C/2 is the
police requisition,
4. Same day at 10.45 P.M., I examined the injured Gokul
Bhoi on police requisition and found the following injuries
on his person:-
i) Abrasion 2″ x 1/2″ over the lower part of the right side of
neck with clot.
ii) Incised injury 1/2″ x 1/3″ x 1/3″ over the tip of right
shoulder.
iii) Incised injury 2/3″ x 1/3″ x 1/3″ over the left shoulder 2″
medial to tip of left shoulder.
iv) Abrasion 1/3″ x 1/4″ on the left side forehead (bleeding).
v) Lacerated injury 3″ x 2″ over the left tempro-parietal
area (bleeding).
Page 14 of 22
All the injuries are simple in nature and their
duration shall be within 4 to 6 hours. Injury Nos. (i), (iv)
and (v) might have been caused by blunt weapon whereas
the other two injuries might have been caused by sharp
cutting weapon. Ext. D is my certificate, Ext. D/1 is my
signature and Ext. D/2 is the police requisition.
5. Same day at 10.15 P.M. I examined injured Sajit Bhoi on
police requisition and found the following injury on his
person:-
i) Lacerated injury 4″ x 1/2″ x 1/3″ over the left tempro-
parietal area.
The injury might have been caused by sharp cutting
weapon and its duration shall be within 4 to 6 hours.
Opinion regarding injury reserved pending examination by
the Specialist in Surgery. The Surgery Specialist opined
after examination that the injury is simple in nature. Ext. E
is my certificate, Ext. E/1 is my signature and Ext.E/2 is the
police requisition.”
12. It is clear from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.12) and the
defence witness (D.W.2) that the Investigating Officer knew the fact
that the accused persons have sustained injuries. He himself
requisition for examining the accused persons by D.W.2, the doctor
posted in D.H.H., Sambalpur. D.W.2 has found various injuries being
sustained by the accused persons. The prosecutor has examined the
said defence witness in extenso only to elucidate the fact that the
accused persons were seriously injured in the occurrence that has
taken place. On the contrast to the evidence of P.W.12 and the
defence evidence, all the injured witnesses either have supressed the
material fact that as to how the accused persons have sustained
Page 15 of 22
injuries or trying to camouflage by saying something contrary to the
evidence of the I.O. and defence witness. Two of the witnesses have
very categorically stated in the cross-examination that none of the
accused persons have sustained any injury. In the light of the
aforementioned evidence, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Gujurat vrs. Bai Fatima and another
reported in (1975) 2 SCC 7 assumes importance to be relied upon.
Paragraph-17 of the said judgment reads as under for convenience of
ready reference:-
“17. In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to
explain the injuries on the person of an accused,
depending on the facts of each case, any of the three
results may follow:
(1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the
members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right
of self-defence.
(2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence
doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be
held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.”
13. The factual matrix of the present case falls under the second
exception as mentioned in paragraph-17 of the judgment of Bai
Fatima (supra). Apart from that this Court in the matter of Manguli
Page 16 of 22
Bhal and Others Vs. State of Orissa2 has held that if the accused
persons have sustained injury in the same incident/occurrence and the
prosecution witnesses tried to supress that the accused have indeed
sustained injuries in the same incident, such suppression being
material suppression, undermines the trustworthiness of the
prosecution witnesses, bringing it under the cloud of doubt. This
Court in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 in the judgment of Manguli Bhal
(supra) has held as under:-
“13. On careful consideration of the materials on record
and the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the
prosecution’s case suffers from a vital infirmity namely,
the failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused
persons during the same occurrence. The record reveals
that the accused Kalia sustained injuries in course of the
incident, which the prosecution has not even attempted to
explain. The prosecution witnesses have either denied
knowledge of such injuries or offered vague and evasive
statements, which cast a serious doubt on the veracity of
the prosecution’s case.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v.
State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 has
categorically held that nonexplanation of injuries found
on the accused by the prosecution assumes significant
importance, especially in cases where the defence version
competes in probability with that of the prosecution and
the evidence comes from interested or inimical witnesses.
The failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation for
the injuries found on the accused, when the same could
have been reasonably explained, indicates that the2
(2026) 101 OCR 820Page 17 of 22
prosecution has not come with clean hands, and the
evidence presented cannot be wholly relied upon. The
Hon’ble Court
held thus-
“The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain
the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much
greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence
gives a version which competes in probability with that
of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is
held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh
received serious injuries which have not been explained
by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court
to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more
particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by
stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of
the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the
High Court appears to have given due consideration to
this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the We
must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State
prosecution case. of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima (supra) there
may be cases where the nonexplanation of the injuries by
the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This
principle would obviously apply to cases where the
injuries sustained by the accused are minor and
superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent,
so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent
and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a
case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in
brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution
case on unconvincing premises.”
15. The proposition is not that every non-explained injury
vitiates the prosecution, but where such omission is
coupled with interested testimony and suppression of
material facts, it becomes fatal. As observed in Krushna v.
State of Orissa, reported in (1992) 5 OCR 529, which
relies upon and reaffirms the aforementioned decision, the
Court cautioned against relying on witnesses who deny
seeing injuries on the accused, despite their visible nature,
as such conduct undermines their credibility and
neutrality. The Court held thus-
Page 18 of 22
“Added to it, we find that the accused Kalia had
sustained an injury. It cannot be laid down as a general
proposition that wherever there is an injury on an
accused which is explained, the prosecution case is
bound to fail. Where there is failure of the prosecution to
offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the
accused, it may show that the evidence related to the
incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. This
view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Mohar Rai
and Bharat Rai v. The State of Bihar: AIR 1963 SC
1281. Non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by
the prosecution affects the prosecution. (See Lakshmi
Singh and others v. State of Bihar: AIR 1976 SC 2263).
Such non-explanation assumes greater importance
where the evidence consists of interested or inimical
witness or where the defence gives a version which
competes in probability with that of the prosecution.
Where, however, the evidence is clear, cogent and
credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the
truth from false-hood, the mere fact that the injuries are
not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a
sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the
whole case. Much depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. (See Vijayee Singh and
others v. State of U.P.: 1990 (11) Crimes 584). Where it
is shown that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis
and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented a
true version, the prosecution case becomes vulnerable.
Non-explanation of the injuries may not affect the
prosecution case as a whole, but the defence can contend
on the basis of nonexplanation of injuries found on the
accused that the accused could have had a right of
privets defence or at any rate a reasonable doubt arises
in this regard.”
14. On the analysis of the entire conspectus of the case on facts and
the law germinating from the evidence on record, it leads to the
conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt
which has been created in the testimony of the injured eye witnesses,
Page 19 of 22
namely, P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Besides that, the contradictions
pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, which lead
to the inherent improbabilities and infirmity appearing in the
prosecution story is sterling. The story narrated in the F.I.R. (Ext.1)
having been completely given a go-by in the evidence of the
informant (P.W.1), as regarding, the manner of assault creates a
serious doubt. The injuries sustained by P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as has
been deposed by the doctor (P.W.4) also lacking corroboration with
their own version. For example, P.W.4, (the doctor) and Ext.5 (injury
report) reveals that, the injury sustained by P.W.2 was lacerated
injury over the left fronto parietal, one bruises over the distal aspect
of right forehand and other bruises over the frontal aspect of lower
right thigh. As per the opinion of the doctor, the lacerated injury is
caused by a sharp cutting weapon and bruises by blunt weapon. P.W.2
in his evidence is silent about the thigh injury and has given different
names at different times about the person who has assaulted on his
hand. While in his examination-in-chief, he attributes the injury to
appellants (Biswa and Kunu). However, in the cross-examination, he
stated that Sarat and Kunu have assaulted him. Similar contradictions
Page 20 of 22
which are apparent on record could also be found from the evidence
of other injured witnesses if compared with the evidence of the doctor
(P.W.4) and the corresponding injury report. I need not embark upon
each and every argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellants regarding the contradiction in the evidence of the eye
witnesses; rather, I confine to the only aspect that the prosecution
witnesses have deliberately either supressed the materials aspects to
the extent that the appellants have sustained injuries in the same
occurrence or tried to completely deny that the appellants have
received any injuries at all.
15. For the reason stated above, precedents cited and on the basis
of the analysis of evidence, this Court concludes that the evidence of
the eyewitnesses seriously comes under the cloud of doubt. Hence,
the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, by
extending the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of all the
charges levelled against them. The judgment and order dated
26.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T.
Case No. No.269 of 1994 is set aside. The bail bonds furnished by the
appellants stand discharged.
Page 21 of 22
16. Accordingly, the CRA is allowed and disposed of.
17. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful
assistance rendered by Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned Amicus Curiae in
this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of
Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a
token of appreciation.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 17th of March, 2026/ Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Mar-2026 13:15:09 Page 22 of 22
