Orissa High Court
Bhoka Satnami And Anr vs State Of Odisha on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 58 of 2002
(From the judgment and order dated 28.02.2002 passed by
learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada in
Sessions Case No. 92/39 of 2000)
CRA No. 58 of 2002
Bhoka Satnami and Anr. ... Appellants
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Appellants : Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. P.S. Nayak, A.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Date of hearing- 31.03.2026 Date of Judgment-07.04.2026
Sashikanta Mishra,J.
Appellants, Bhoka Satnami and Lokanath
Satnami faced trial in Sessions Case No. 92/39 of 2000 in
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 1 of 16
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuapada
for committing the murder of one Jitaram Satnami. Both
the appellants being convicted under Section 302/34 IPC
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide
judgment dated 28.02.2002 passed by the trial Court. Be it
noted that during pendency of this appeal appellant No.1
Bhoka Satnami expired on 01.06.2015. Accordingly, by
order dated 24.10.2025 passed earlier in this proceeding
the appeal stood abated with regard to the said appellant
No.1 Bhoka Satnami.
2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:
The deceased Jitaram Satnami had invited his
father-in-law, Kumal Satnami to his village for the purpose
of sowing paddy seeds on his land. Accordingly, on
27.06.2000, Kumal arrived at his son-in-law’s house and
stayed for the night. On the next morning, at about 5 a.m.,
they went to village Pendraban by bus and arrived in the
land locally called, Chakridoli at about 7 a.m. At that time,
uncle of the deceased namely, Bhoka Satnami and his son
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 2 of 16
Lokanath Satnami (accused persons) were preparing toplough the land. On seeing these two, the accused persons
unfastened the yoke from the plough. Then both of them
came near the deceased and abused him. Bhoka assaulted
the deceased by means of the yoke causing him to fall
down. The yoke also broke into two pieces. Loknath picked
up one of the broken pieces and assaulted the deceased.
Both of them also tried to assault Kumal who ran away to
the village. As a result of the assault, the deceased died at
the spot. Kumal informed the matter to the Gramarakhi,
Nidhiram Sindhu and went with him to Komna police
station where he orally reported the incident which was
reduced to writing by one Chaitanya Kumbhar.
3. On the basis of the said report, Komna P.S. Case No.
43 of 2000 was registered under Sections 302/34 of IPC
and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the
accused persons.
4. The accused persons took the plea of denial.
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 3 of 16
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses
and proved 24 documents. Besides, prosecution also
proved 15 material objects. The defence on other hand,
examined only one witness.
6. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record
found that there was prior enmity between the deceased
and accused persons arising out of a civil dispute relating
to the very same land. It was also held that the death of the
deceased was caused by the injuries inflicted by means of
the yoke. The evidence of the eye witness, P.W.1 as
supported by the other witnesses was relied upon to hold
both the accused persons guilty of the charge. Accordingly,
both were convicted and sentenced as already stated
hereinbefore.
7. Heard Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
appellant, Lokanath Satnami and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned
AGA for the State.
8. Mr. Mohapatra assails the impugned judgment by
arguing that the FIR is doubtful as the informant admitted
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 4 of 16
that he does not know Odia. There is no evidence that the
contents were understood by him. He further submits that
though the spot map shows the spot of occurrence lies to
the east of village but as per P.W.2 the same is to the west,
which creates doubt. There is no evidence of any
altercation having taken place at the spot between the
deceased and the accused persons. However, P.W.2 stated
about the deceased being abused by the accused persons,
which is not believable. As per P.W.11, injury No.2 was the
cause of death, though P.W.1, who claims to be an eye
witness did not say anything about assault on the chest.
He further argues that no one specified the name of
Lokanath Satnami. The eye witness (P.W.1) admits that he
had fled away from the spot after seeing only one assault
and therefore he is not competent to say about the details
of the occurrence. Prosecution did not examine any of the
neighbouring tenants.
9. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Nayak learned State counsel
would submit that the FIR was read over and explained to
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 5 of 16
the informant by the scribe and the informant put his LTI
after finding its contents to be correct. There is no evidence
to show that the scribe did not understand Chhattisgarhi
language. As regards the role of accused Lokanath, both
P.W.1 and 2 clearly stated about him. In any case, both
were charged also under Section 34 IPC. The yoke used in
the assault was recovered from the house of the accused
persons at the instance of accused Bhoka Satnami.
Further, the civil dispute between the parties provides clear
motive for the offence.
10. Before considering the merits of the rival
contentions, we deem it proper to independently analyze
the evidence. We find that P.W.1, the father-in-law of the
deceased and the informant, is one of the eye witnesses to
the occurrence. He corroborated the FIR story in material
particulars. He was cross-examined at length but nothing
came out thereby to discredit him. P.W.2 is the other eye
witness. He corroborated the version of P.W.1 fully. Some
contradictions have been pointed out but according to us,
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 6 of 16
the same are not material. P.W.3 is the Gramarakhi before
whom P.W.1 related the incident immediately. Though he
is not an eye witness yet his version is important for the
reason that after hearing about the incident from P.W.1 he
immediately rushed to the spot and found the deceased
lying dead with bleeding injury. He then accompanied
P.W.1 to the police station. P.W.4 is the Sarpanch of
Pendraban G.P. whose version is similar to that of P.W.3.
P.W. 7 and 8 have also supported the prosecution version
though they are the immediate post-occurrence witnesses.
It is proved from the evidence that the deceased was lying
dead with bleeding injury on his person. P.W.9 being the
widow of the deceased stated about the civil suit which was
decreed in their favour by the learned Sub-Judge,
Nuapada. P.W.11 is the autopsy surgeon who found eight
injuries on the dead body of the deceased out of which
injury no.2 was the fatal one. He clearly stated that the
cause of death is pneumothorax as per injury No.2. P.W.12
is the I.O., who among other things, stated that while in
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 7 of 16
police custody accused Bhoka led him to his house where
he had concealed the weapon of offence under a heap of
firewood behind his house and as such, the I.O. recovered
the two broken pieces of the yoke. Defence has also
examined one witness to show that the land of the accused
persons is not visible from the land of Sibaram Duria on
whose land the occurrence, according to prosecution took
place.
11. Having noted the evidence as above we shall now
proceed to deal with grounds raised by the defence to
question the correctness of the impugned judgment:
11.1. As regards the FIR (Exhibit-1), we find that there
is an endorsement by the scribe, Chaitanya Kumbhar that
he had scribed the contents as stated by the informant and
had signed after the contents were read over to the
informant who affixed his LTI. Learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that the FIR is scribed in Odia but
P.W.1 admitted that he does not know Odia and that he
had stated in Chhattisgarhi language. The scribe
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 8 of 16
Chaitanya Kumbhar was not examined. Nevertheless, thereis no reason to suppose that he was not conversant with
Chhattisgarhi language. Otherwise, he not being an eye
witness could not have scribed the FIR containing the
details of occurrence. It is obvious that he must have been
conversant with both Odia as well as Chhattisgarhi. The
doubt expressed by the defence arises more out of
presumption and speculation than any acceptable material
and as such, it is not tenable.
11.2 Objection has been raised as regards the
evidence relating to the actual spot. We have perused the
spot map marked Exhibit-22. The village, Pendraban
situates on the eastern side while the spot of occurrence
marked-A situates to the western side. P.W.2 described the
boundary of the case land and further stated that all land
situate to the west of the village. This is entirely in line with
the spot map and we find nothing to raise a doubt in this
regard.
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 9 of 16
11.3 It is argued that the version of P.W.2 that theaccused persons rushed towards the deceased abusing him
has not been supported by P.W.1 who did not whisper a
word of any abuse. Therefore, the version of P.W.2 should
not be accepted. We find from the evidence of P.W.2 that
accused, Bhoka untied his plough, brought out the yoke
and rushed towards the deceased and the informant
shouting ‘Sala, you have come to sow paddy in this field’. It
is true that P.W.1 has not stated anything about any abuse
by the accused persons. This according to us is a minor
contradiction which does not have the effect of demolishing
the prosecution case in its entirety given the clear evidence
of the assault. It is well settled that minor improvements,
exaggerations and embellishments are not to be used to
discredit other clinching evidence of the occurrence, if
available on record. Needless to mention, in the instant
case, the positive testimonies of P.W.1 and 2 as regards the
assault is good enough for the Court to accept.
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 10 of 16
11.4. Learned defence counsel has argued that no onehas deposed specifically regarding any assault on the chest
of the deceased which according to the autopsy surgeon
P.W.11, was fatal. As already stated, the autopsy surgeon
found 8 injuries on the dead body of which, injury No.2
being the fatal one was a contusion of size 2″x2″ over the
front side of the left chest, one inch below the nipple. Since
defence has not disputed the opinion of P.W.11 that injury
no.2 had caused the death we are not inclined to go into it
in detail. We find that according to P.W.1, Bhoka first dealt
a blow with the yoke on the head of the deceased. As a
result, the yoke itself was broken into two pieces. Accused
Lokanath then dealt a blow with the broken part on the
right leg. As a result, the deceased fell down on the ground
and then both the accused persons assaulted him on his
body. Thus, from the evidence it can be easily discerned
that the deceased was assaulted on different parts of his
body including his head. We fail to understand as to how
non-specification of the assault on the chest improves the
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 11 of 16
defence case. P.W.1 being a rustic villager generallydescribed about the assault which is consistent with
number of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased
at the time of PM examination. We therefore no find no
substance in the ground raised.
11.5. It is argued that both P.W. 1 and 2 stated that they
fled away from the spot after witnessing only one assault
and therefore they cannot be treated as eye witnesses. We
do not agree because both of them have given out the
entire sequence of the assault i.e. first, on the head and
then, on different parts of the body. Obviously, the assault
would have taken place within a very short period of time
and therefore, before leaving the spot both P.W.1 and 2
would have clearly seen the entirety of it.
11.6. The argument that no one stated the name of
Lokanath Satnami specifically is also not acceptable as on
bare reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, it can be seen
that both of them first identified both the accused persons
standing in the dock and then described the occurrence by
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 12 of 16
stating that ‘both the accused persons’ assaulted thedeceased. Even otherwise, specific overt act has been
attributed to accused Lokanath by P.W.1 inasmuch as,
first, he stated about the assault by Lokanath on the right
leg of the deceased and subsequently on different parts of
his body after the deceased had fallen to the ground.
12. We, therefore, find that none of the grounds raised by
the defence to question the correctness of the finding
rendered by the trial Court are valid enough to persuade us
to take a different view.
13. It is alternatively argued that even accepting the
prosecution case fully, it would still not be a case of
murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Learned State counsel submits that prior enmity being
proved followed by assault there can be no other
conclusion than that it was a case of murder.
14. We have given our anxious consideration to the
contentions raised in this regard. There seems to be no
dispute that there was civil dispute between the parties. A
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 13 of 16
suit had been filed for partition which was decreed in
favour of the deceased. When the deceased along with his
father-in-law came to the disputed land to sow paddy
seeds, the accused persons, who were ploughing the lands
assaulted the deceased upon seeing him. Therefore,
notwithstanding prior dispute, there was no evidence of
any pre-meditation or preparation. Only when the deceased
and his father-in-law arrived at the paddy field, the
accused persons assaulted him. This was obviously a
fallout of the previous dispute between them relating to the
land. The accused persons must have been smarting from
the defeat in the litigation. Therefore, upon seeing the
deceased and his father-in-law on the disputed land it was
natural that they would have been further angered. The
presence of the deceased with the intent of sowing seeds on
the same land clearly acted as an act of provocation given
the background of the disputes. Both of them used the
yoke which was already tied to the plough. This is a
significant aspect of the matter as it shows that they were
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 14 of 16
not armed with any weapon nor did they bring any other
weapon to assault. It only shows that both of them were
seized by sudden anger and therefore committed the
assault. In the absence of any pre-meditation, it is difficult
to hold that the assault was actuated with a definite
intention to do away of the life of the deceased though they
must be held to have had the knowledge that the assault
would either cause death or cause such bodily injury as
was likely to cause death.
15. In our considered opinion therefore, the case would
fall under exception (i) and (iv) of Section 299 IPC and
therefore, punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. We
are further of the view that given the fact that the
occurrence took place 26 years ago, ends of justice would
be best served by sentencing the accused to 7 years of
rigorous imprisonment.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned judgment is modified by substituting the
conviction for murder by conviction for culpable homicide
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 15 of 16
not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304
Part II of IPC. Consequently, the sentence of life
imprisonment is modified to sentence of 7 years of RI with
the usual set-off.
17. The appellant, Lokanath Satnami being on bail, his
bail bonds be cancelled and he be taken into custody
forthwith for serving the remaining part of his sentence, if
any.
……………………………………
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree.
…………………………………….
(Manash Ranjan Pathak,J.
Signature NotHigh
Verified
Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Digitally Signed Deepak
Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,Cuttack
Date: 07-Apr-2026 14:26:04
CRA No. 58 of 2002 Page 16 of 16