Orissa High Court
Krupasindhu @ Kurupa Bhoi vs State Of Orissa on 22 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.103 of 2005
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Krupasindhu @ Kurupa Bhoi ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Ms. Ananya Mishra, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 05.05.2026 : Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has assailed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2005 passed by the
learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II,
Puri in S.T. Case No.65/390 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred), in default, to undergo
further R.I. for 15 days more.
2. The present appeal has been pending since 2005. Continuously
none appeared for the appellant, when the matter was taken up for
hearing. Therefore, on 15.07.2025, it was ordered that if none appears
for hearing on the subsequent day when matter is listed then an
Amicus Curiae will be appointed and subsequent to that on
24.07.2025, Ms. Ananya Mishra, Advocate was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist the Court in the matter when the matter was heard
and subsequently on 05.05.2026 she filed a detailed written note of
submission.
3. Heard Ms. Ananya Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.02.2003, while Tapi
Bhoi and Ganesh Sethi were returning home from the market, the
accused, Krupasindhu Bhoi, at Narendrakona, allegedly assaulted
Tapi by striking him on the backside of his head with a broken glass
tumbler, causing profuse bleeding injuries. Thereafter, Ganesh took
Tapi to Town P.S., Puri, to lodge a report, from where Tapi was
shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri, for treatment.
Page 2 of 9
5. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial. He claimed
trial, therefore, after framing of charges under Section 341/307 of the
IPC, he was put to trial.
6. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution
has examined as many as six witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the
informant and elder brother of Tapi Bhoi; P.W.2, namely Ganesh
Sethi, was accompanying Tapi Bhoi at the time of occurrence; P.W.3
was the injured, Tapi Bhoi himself; P.W.4 was the doctor, who
treated Tapi after the occurrence; P.W.5 was another witness to the
case, who has not stated anything about the incident or the accused or
the injured; and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer. The defence has
examined no witness.
7. Upon a detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court came to hold that
the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients of the offence
under Section 307 IPC as well as the charge under Section 341 IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt. However, considering the nature of
weapon used and the injuries sustained by the victim, the learned trial
Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under
Page 3 of 9
Section 324 IPC. The relevant findings of the learned trial Court are
extracted herein below:
“9. The learned counsel for the defence has submitted that
the blood-stained clothes were not seized by the I.O., so the
prosecution case cannot be believed. The learned counsel
for the prosecution has submitted that non-seizure of blood-
stained clothes by the I.O., cannot be taken to be a ground
to disbelieve the prosecution case if the evidence of the
witnesses are trustworthy reliable and believable. So, the
consistent and positive evidence of the witnesses without
any ill-will cannot be disbelieved for non-seizure of blood-
stained wearing apparels by the I.0.
10. The learned counsel for the defence has submitted that
there is no interruption in the act of the accd. while dealing
the blow, which did not cause death of P.W.3 and as such,
the accused has not committed any offence under Sec. 307
I.P.C. The evidence in this case goes to show that
prosecution has not made out a case under the facts and
circumstances as envisaged under sec. 300 I. P. C. What
the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its
result, was done with the intention or knowledge or under
the circumstances mentioned in the section. It is sufficient if
there is intent coupled with some overt-act in execution
thereof. In this case the nature of injury, place of injury and
the weapon of offence do not suggest the intention or
knowledge for the offence of causing death of the victim.
But the weapon of offence i.e. a broken glass tumbler is a
dangerous weapon if used for inflicting an injury. So, I bent
upon to convict the accused under Sec. 324 IPC. As there is
no direct evidence of wrongful restrain the accused is
acquitted of the charges under Secs.341/307 I.P.C…….”
8. Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant,
has primarily advanced her submissions on two grounds. Firstly, she
contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.,
inasmuch as the occurrence allegedly took place on 18.02.2003
whereas the F.I.R. was lodged nearly 12 hours thereafter, i.e., on the
Page 4 of 9
following day, 19.02.2003. Although P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that
they immediately proceeded to Town P.S. to report the matter, no
such report has been brought on record and the delay in lodging the
F.I.R. has remained unexplained.
9. Secondly, it was submitted that the broken glass tumbler, which
forms the basis of the prosecution case, was neither recovered nor
seized during investigation, nor was it produced before the learned
trial Court. It was further argued that while P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that
the appellant assaulted P.W.3 on the backside of his head with a glass
tumbler, there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that the tumbler
was broken. Though P.W.3 has categorically stated that he was
assaulted by means of a broken glass tumbler, according to the
learned Amicus Curiae, he had no occasion to notice whether the
tumbler was broken or intact, as he himself stated that the assault
came from behind. Additionally the blood stained clothes of the
injured has also not been seized.
10. It was, therefore, contended that an intact glass tumbler, by
itself, may not qualify as a “dangerous weapon or means” so as to
attract the offence under Section 324 IPC, unless it is specifically
Page 5 of 9
established that the nature of the weapon and the manner in which it
was used rendered it dangerous. On such grounds, prayer has been
made for acquittal of the appellant from the said charge.
11. Upon careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court
finds that the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are substantially
consistent with regard to the occurrence and the overt act attributed to
the appellant. Their evidence clearly establishes that the appellant
assaulted P.W.3 on the backside of his head, resulting in bleeding
injuries, which also stands corroborated by the medical evidence of
P.W.4. Merely because certain procedural lapses occurred during
investigation, such as non-seizure of the blood-stained wearing
apparels or failure to seize and produce the alleged weapon of offence
before the Court, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded
when the ocular evidence of the witnesses are otherwise cogent,
trustworthy and reliable. It is well settled that lapses on the part of the
Investigating Officer should not, by themselves, become a ground to
throw out an otherwise credible prosecution case.
12. However, this Court finds substance in the submission
advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae insofar as the nature of the
weapon of offence used in the commission of the crime. Though the
Page 6 of 9
prosecution case proceeds on the allegation that the assault was made
by means of a broken glass tumbler, there is no convincing evidence
on record to conclusively establish that the tumbler was, in fact,
broken at the time of occurrence. While P.Ws.1 and 2 have merely
stated that the assault was made by a glass tumbler, P.W.3 has
described it as a broken glass tumbler, despite his own statement that
the blow was dealt from behind, thereby making it doubtful whether
he had the opportunity to notice the exact nature of the tumbler.
Furthermore, the alleged weapon of offence was never seized or
produced before the learned trial Court.
13. In such circumstances, a reasonable doubt arises as to whether
the weapon used could be termed a “dangerous weapon or means”
within the meaning of Section 324 IPC. It is a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that where two views are possible, the one
favourable to the accused must be adopted. Accordingly, the benefit
of such doubt deserves to be extended to the appellant.
14. Therefore, while this Court is not inclined to disbelieve the
prosecution version regarding the assault itself, the conviction of the
appellant under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of
clear and cogent proof regarding the use of a dangerous weapon.
Page 7 of 9
Nonetheless, the evidence on record unmistakably proves that the
appellant voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.3. Hence, the conviction of
the appellant is modified from Section 324 IPC to Section 323 IPC.
15. At this stage, Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae has also
submitted that a lenient view may be taken while imposing the
sentence. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to
undergo R.I. for 2 years and imposed a fine of Rs.200/-. It appears
from the record that the appellant has already undergone custody for a
period of 5 months and 28 days. The incident relates back to the year
2003. At that point of time, the appellant was about 34 years of age.
Hence, at present, the appellant would be about 57 years of age. Much
water has flown under the bridge by now. The appellant is already
settled in his life with his family. Over the years, he has lived
peacefully, well integrated into society, and is presently leading stable
family life. Incarcerating him at this belated stage would have a
serious and cascading effect on the entire family. Therefore, she
submitted that a lenient view should be taken while considering the
sentencing of the appellant.
16. In view of the aforementioned mitigating facts and
circumstances, the prayer made by Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus
Page 8 of 9
Curiae deserves merit. Taking into consideration the aforementioned,
while modifying the sentence to conviction u/s.323 I.P.C the sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court to the appellant is modified to that
of the period the appellant has already undergone. However, to
balance the scale of Justice the fine of Rs.200/- imposed on the
appellant is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand), in the
event of failure to pay the fine amount, the appellant shall undergo
R.I. for a period of fifteen days more. The appellant shall deposit the
fine amount within a period of four weeks from today. The fine
amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to P.W.3 in accordance
with Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. as compensation.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
18. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and
meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Ananya Mishra, learned
Amicus Curiae. She is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/-
(Rupees seven thousand and five hundred) to be paid as token of
appreciation.
(S.S. Mishra)
Signature Not Verified Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Digitally Signed Dated the 22nd Day of May 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 25-May-2026 20:33:05
Page 9 of 9
