Bhoka Satnami And Anr vs State Of Odisha on 7 April, 2026

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 to

plough 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, there

is 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 the

accused 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 one

has 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 generally

described 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 the

deceased. 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