Orissa High Court
Rameya Sethi And Others vs State Of Orissa on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 36 of 1999 &
CRA No. 5 of 2000
(From the judgments and orders dated 11.01.1999 and
07.12.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-
Gajapati at Berhampur in S.C. No. 142 of 1998/244 of 1998
and SC No. 369 of 1998)
AFR CRA No. 36 of 1999
Rameya Sethi and others .... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ..... Respondent
CRA No. 5 of 2000
Kailash Ghadei .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ..... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case through hybrid mode:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Karnain Sattar, Advocate
For A-1 & 2
Ms. Bharati Dash, Advocate
For A-3.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
__________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 24
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Date of Hearing : 26.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment:12.03.2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Both these appeals, though filed against separate
judgments, arise out of the same incident and were heard
together. As such, both appeals are disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The appellants in CRA No. 36 of 1999 faced trial in
SC Nos.142/98 and 244/98 in the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur for the
offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of IPC.
They were convicted by judgment dated 11.01.1999 for the
aforementioned offences and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149
IPC and R.I. for 5 years and 2 years respectively for the
offence under Sections 307/149 and148 of IPC. The sole
Page 2 of 24
appellant in CRA No.5 of 2000 faced trial in SC No. 369 of
1998 for committing the offences under Sections 302/149
IPC and 307/149 IPC in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur. He was convicted
vide judgment dated 07.12.1999 for the said offences and
sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under
Sections 302/149 IPC and R.I. for 5 years under Sections
307/149 IPC and 2 years under Section of 148 IPC.
It is pertinent to note that the appeal in respect of
appellant No.2- Narayan Ghadei and appellant No.5-Ashok
Kumar Naik in CRA No. 36 of 1999 has abated due to their
death during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Prosecution case, briefly stated, are as follows:
The accused persons led by Rameya Sethi were in
the habit of eve-teasing one Bishnupriya Behera, daughter
of Prakash Behera (deceased) by making indecent
comments. The girl having complained to her father, he
started taking her to the College on his scooter every day.
On 21.09.1997, the accused persons went to the house of
Page 3 of 24
the deceased and threatened Bishnupriya and her motherthat the deceased would be killed if he interfered. On the
next day, some of the accused persons led by Rameya Sethi
came to Dhanamera Sahi, abused the family members of the
deceased as well as people of the locality and posted red
flags in front of the house of the deceased declaring that
Bishnupriya is reserved for Rameya Sethi. When the
relations of deceased protested, Rameya threw a bomb
causing injury to Suresh Behera. Then Ugrasen dealt a
sword blow on Tutu Behera causing bleeding injuries. The
matter was reported at Badabazar Police Station and a case
was registered. The injured persons were admitted to the
hospital for treatment. On 23.09.1997 at about 10 p.m.
when the deceased, Nunu Pujari, Runa Behera and Sunil
Nayak were returning on cycles after giving food to the
injured persons in the hospital, they were attacked by the
accused persons, who had concealed themselves behind
some cabins on Corporation Road of Sriram Nagar. They
were armed with deadly weapons like kati, bhujali, sword,
iron rod etc. They first attacked Nunu Pujari and Prakash
Page 4 of 24
Behera. Rameya dealt bhujali blows on the neck of NunuPujari. Nunu and Prakash fell down from the cycle. Then
Kailash Ghadei dealt a sword blow on the backside of Nunu
Pujari and Narayan Ghadei also dealt a sword blow on the
right arm of Nunu Pujari. When the deceased protested and
requested them not to attack, Rameya Sethi caught hold of
him and dragged him to one side and asked the other
accused persons to kill him. All the accused persons
thereafter hacked the deceased. Seeing this, Nunu Pujari
and others fled away. Nunu collapsed near the tyre shop of
Dhanamera Sahi where he narrated the incident to the wife
and daughter of the deceased and other persons. The family
members of the deceased and other persons of the locality
went to the spot and found him lying dead with multiple
injuries.
4. Sunil Nayak lodged report before Town Police
Station leading to registration of P.S. Case No. 186 of 1997
under Sections 147/148/302/307/149 IPC followed by
investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
Page 5 of 24
was submitted against the accused persons under Sections
148 of IPC, 307/149 IPC and 302/149 IPC. Initially, six
persons were committed for trial in SC No.142/1998.
Accused Raji Gouda was arrested subsequently and
committed for trial in SC No. 244/1998. Accused Kailash
Ghadei was absconder and he was arrested subsequently
and faced trial separately in SC No.369/1998 also for the
aforesaid offences.
5. Accused took the plea of denial and false
implication.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution in CRA No.36 of
1999 examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited sixteen
documents. In CRA No.5 of 2000, the prosecution examined
twelve witnesses and exhibited sixteen documents. Besides,
the prosecution proved three material objects in CRA No.36
of 1999 and three material objects in CRA No.5 of 2000. The
defence, on the other hand, in CRA No.36 of 1999 did not
adduce any evidence, whereas in CRA No.5 of 2000 the
defence exhibited one document.
Page 6 of 24
7. The trial Court, after analysing the evidence on
record found the prosecution to have successfully
established its case against the accused persons except
accused Raji Gouda and Ashok Sahoo. All the other accused
persons were however, held guilty of the offence under
Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section
302/149 IPC, 5 years and 2 years respectively for the
offence under Sections 307/149 IPC and 148 IPC vide
judgment dated 11.01.1999. In the separate judgment
passed on 07.12.1999 in SC No. 369/1998 accused Kailash
Ghadei was also similarly convicted and sentenced.
8. Heard Mr. Karnain Sattar, learned counsel for the
appellant Nos. 1 & 3 in CRA No. 36 of 1999 and for sole
appellant in CRA No.5 of 2000; Ms. Bharati Dash, learned
counsel for the accused appellant no.4 in CRA No. 36 of
1999. Also heard Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
Page 7 of 24
9. Mr. Sattar has assails the impugned judgment of
conviction on the following grounds:
i. There are material contradictions in the evidence of
the eyewitnesses, namely, PW-4, PW-8 and PW-9,
which demolishes their credibility and should have
been relied upon by the trial Court.
ii. The time, place and the manner of alleged assault
was such that the so-called eyewitnesses could not
have seen the occurrence.
iii. Only one weapon of offence was seized even though
there were several accused persons, all of whom
were alleged to be armed with deadly weapons.
10. Ms. Dash while adopting the aforementioned
grounds further submits that there is doubt as regards the
exact spot of occurrence in view of the prevaricating
statements of witnesses. Further, there is clear evidence of
prior enmity between the accused persons and the deceased
Page 8 of 24
for which the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled
out.
11. Mr. Nayak, learned State Counsel on the other hand
would submit that none of the grounds raised to question
the correctness of the findings of the trial Court are valid
and tenable. He submits that the evidence of the
eyewitnesses is clear, cogent, consistent and trustworthy.
Further, the so-called evidence of prior enmity is nothing
but the starting point of the dispute which led to the
occurrence. The contradictions pointed out are minor in
nature and cannot demolish the version of the eyewitnesses.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
contentions and have also carefully perused the evidence on
record including the impugned judgments. As already
stated, prosecution examined 13 witnesses, out of whom
PW-4- Nunu Pujari being an injured witness, PW-8- Sunil
Kumar Nayak being present at the spot and PW-9- Runa
Behera being also present at the spot are the most
important witnesses. From the evidence of PW-4, PW-7 and
Page 9 of 24
PW-8 it transpires that prior to the occurrence, which took
place on 23.09.1997, there was another incident on
22.09.1997 when accused Rameya Sethi and his associates,
namely Manas Bisoi, Ashok Nayak and others posted red
flags on the street of Dhanamera Sahi and abused Bhim
Behera, nephew of deceased Prakash Behera. Accused
Rameya threw a bomb at Suresh Behera, brother of the
deceased, due to which he was injured. Accused Ugrasen
also assaulted Tutu Behera by means of a sword causing
injuries. The matter was reported at the police station and
both were treated at the hospital. On the night of the
occurrence, Nunu Pujari (PW-4), Sunil Nayak (PW-8) and
Runa Behera (PW-9) had gone to the hospital along with the
deceased carrying food for the injured. After delivering food
they returned on two cycles. Nunu and the deceased were
on one cycle while the other two were on another cycle.
Nunu was riding the cycle. While passing through the
Corporation Road between Mochi Sahi and Patrapeta Sahi,
the accused persons suddenly came out from behind a
cabin being armed with deadly weapons. Accused Rameya
Page 10 of 24
chased Nunu with a bhujali and struck a blow on the
backside of his neck causing a cut injury, due to which they
fell down from the cycle. Accused Kailash Ghadei dealt a
blow with sword on the back of Nunu’s head while Narayan
dealt a sword blow on his right arm. The deceased asked the
accused persons as to why they were attacking and
requested them not to do so but they caught hold of him,
dragged him to one side of the road and dealt sword blows
and bhujali blows on him. Seeking this, Nunu ran away
towards Aska Road and collapsed near the tyre company.
Sunil Kumar Nayak also stated more or less the same thing
and so also Runa Behera (PW-9).
13. We have carefully perused the cross-examination of
these witnesses and do not find anything material therein to
doubt the veracity of their versions. The trial Court believed
the eyewitness accounts.
14. Though the defence has not specifically challenged
the finding of homicidal death of the deceased, in order to
be subjectively satisfied ourselves, we have looked into the
Page 11 of 24
evidence of the autopsy surgeon (PW-10). He stated that at
the time of conduct of postmortem examination over the
dead body of the deceased he found the following injuries:
“External injuries :
(i) Superficial cut wound 1cm x 0.25 cm x skin deep
situated transversely on the radial side of fight
forearm.
(ii) Deep cut wound (chopped wound) 16 cm x 7.5 cm x
joint cavity deep situated little obliquely over the left
popliteal fossa, i.e., the back of knee. The wound has
cut the muscles, vessels and nerves and had chopped
out the medial condyle of left femur.
(iii) Linear superficial cut 5cm x 2 cm part thickness of
skin on the posterior aspect of left thigh being
surrounded by an abraided contusion of size 7cm x
3cm looking purplish row in colour.
iv. Cut wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep situated
transversely on the outer aspect of right leg and had
made a cut fracture over the under lying fibula bone.
v. Linear curved abrasion 9cm long situated on the left
side front of the abdomen
vi. An ole partly heeled ulcer 3cm x 1.5 cm with scab
situated over the shin of left tibia in its middle portion.
Internal Injuries:
On dissection I found the following injuries:
1. Corresponding to external injury no. 2 the upper
belly of gastrocenemius muscle and other puopliteal
muscles of left pupplieteal fossa were cut pupliteal
vessels and nerves were cut long with cut fracture of
medial condyale of left femur, where the condyale
portion was chopped out and the wound communicates
into the knee joint.
Page 12 of 24
11. Corresponding to external injury no.4 the wound
has made a cut fracture to the lower end of fibula.
111. Stomach was intact looking pale, contains 300
mls. litres of brownish colour fluid in which oil
dropplets were floating but no characterise smell could
be appreciated.
iv. Cerebral oedema could be noted to a mark extend in
the brain and the brain was intact and pale.”
He submitted his opinion as follows:
I. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. External
injury No. 6 was partly heeled ulcer which was of
about 7 to 10 days old. Rest of the injuries other than
the six might have been caused just before the death of
the deceased.
II. Internal injury 1 to 5 and their corresponding
internal injuries were probably caused by moderately
heavy sharp cutting weapon.
III. The injuries were homicidal in nature.
IV. All the injuries combinedly were fatal in ordinary
course of nature. External injury no.2 and its
corresponding internal injury were also fatal in nature.Death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and
shock resulting from the injuries. The death occurred
about 12 hours before the P.M .examination.”He also stated that injuries noted by him are
possible to be caused by bhujali. We thus, find that the
medical evidence fully supports the ocular. Having noted the
above, we shall now proceed to deal with the rival
contentions.
Page 13 of 24
15. The first ground urged by the appellants is that the
evidence of the eyewitnesses is marred by several
contradictions. In this context, it is submitted that PW-4
initially stated that the accused Rameya chased him with a
bhujali but later he stated about a sword blow being
inflicted on his neck. This, according to us, is immaterial as
there is no dispute that PW-4 sustained cut injuries on his
neck and other parts of the body. So, whether the weapon of
offence was bhujali or sword cannot nullify his statement
that he was so attacked.
16. It is further submitted that PW-4 clearly stated that
after the initial assault, he ran for his life from the spot
towards Aska Road and collapsed near the tyre company. As
such, he could not have seen the occurrence, particularly
when he has not stated that he stopped on the way and
turned back to see the assault on the deceased. It has been
further urged that the fact that since PW-4 could not state
about the exact injuries to the deceased and by what
weapon they were inflicted, his evidence has to be
Page 14 of 24
discarded. We do not agree for the reason that the proof of
assault by accused Rameya and others on the deceased
using deadly weapons resulting in several injuries on his
body are otherwise proved. Prosecution does not rely only
on the evidence of PW-4 in this regard.
It has been further argued that according to PW-4,
Basanta Mukhi, Rama Naik and another person of his sahi
took him to Bada Bazar Police Station but he did not lodge
any report at the Police Station as he was not in a condition
to do so. He further stated that his mother, another girl and
police personnel came with him to the Medical College and
that he was conscious during the journey. He told the
doctor that he was attacked with sword but did not disclose
the name of the assailants. Non-lodging of report at the first
instance at Bada Bazar Police Station cannot be a material
omission for the simple reason that being injured by the
assault, the first reaction would be to avail treatment. In
fact, this is what the police appears to have done by taking
him to the hospital. The omission of PW-4 to disclose the
Page 15 of 24
name of the assailants before the doctor does not appear to
be of any consequence to us for the reason that it was
necessary for him at that point of time to explain what had
caused the wounds on his body and not who had caused
them. There is a doubt as to who actually accompanied him
to the hospital. PW-4 says that he went with his mother and
another girl but the doctor (PW-3) says that one Balaram
Pujari was with him. Even accepting that this is a
discrepancy in the statement, we fail to see as to how this
can shake his credibility. PW-4 denied the suggestion that a
criminal case had been lodged against him and others
relating to the incident on 22.09.1997 but PW-7 admitted
that such a case had been registered. Again, we fail to see
as to how this denial of PW-4 can demolish his otherwise
reliable version of the incident. Some other minor
discrepancies have been pointed out as regards the manner
of assault on the deceased but as is well settled, the
witnesses are not expected to recount past incidents with
mathematical precision. Some improvements,
Page 16 of 24
contradictions, embellishments are bound to occur, which is
in line with ordinary human nature.
Reference in this regard may be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde v.
State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Court observed as
follows:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to
be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles
enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in
mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the
time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted
unless there are material contradictions in his
deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the
evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness
would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely
implicate the accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist,
their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be
doubted on account of some embellishment in natural
conduct or minor contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness,
then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment
should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but
not the whole evidence.
1
(2023) 13 SCC 365
Page 17 of 24
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version
must be taken into consideration and discrepancies
which normally creep due to loss of memory with
passage of time should be discarded.”
[Emphasis added]
17. As regards the version of PW-8, the informant, it is
submitted that in the FIR lodged by him, he named more
than seven persons but could not specify the roles allegedly
played by all, for which two persons were ultimately
acquitted though they were named in the FIR. This,
according to defence suggests that he was giving a distorted
version of the occurrence. P.W.-8 stated that some people of
the area saw the occurrence but he never named them.
This, according to the defence, proves that the version of
PW-8 is entirely concocted. We are not impressed by these
arguments for the reason that law is well settled that FIR is
not supposed to be an encyclopaedia, it merely sets the
criminal law into motion. What the witnesses say in Court
only matters. Of course, wide variations from the FIR story
and the version of the witnesses can be questioned but such
is not the case at hand. Reading of the FIR shows that PW-8
Page 18 of 24
has related the occurrence in detail with reference to the
occurrence that took place on the previous day.
18. As regards PW-9, it is submitted that though he
named Rameya Sethi, Kailash Ghadei, Manas Bisoi and
other accused persons of having come out from darkness
from behind the cabins armed with deadly weapons, yet PW-
8 admitted that he was not aware of Ashok Naik and Manas
Bisoi and that PW-9 had told him about their involvement.
This, according to defence, implies that their names were
included after discussion and deliberation. PW-9 further
admitted that he cannot say the names of all the witnesses
who attacked Prakash Behera though they were all
members of the locality. We are not inclined to place much
importance on these minor gaps in the version of PW-9 so
as to be persuaded to discard it entirely. Thus, we have seen
that the eyewitness accounts are clear and consistent and
can be relied upon. The contradictions pointed out are not
material.
Page 19 of 24
19. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently
argued that considering the time and spot of occurrence, the
eyewitnesses could not have seen the occurrence and given
the evidence regarding previous enmity, it must be held that
they had implicated the accused persons falsely. We have
perused the evidence carefully, particularly the spot map,
marked Ext-12. There is an electric light on a pole very near
to the spot being at a distance of about 40 feet. So, it cannot
be said that the spot was plunged into darkness. That apart,
both parties are known to each other. So, it cannot be said
that assailants were strangers so as to make them
identifiable. What we find on the other hand is that all of
them have been named individually as being part of the
group that assaulted Nunu Pujari (PW-4) as well as the
deceased. The grounds raised by the defence are therefore,
untenable.
20. The defence has tried to take mileage of the fact that
only one weapon, i.e., bhujali was recovered which weakens
the prosecution story that several persons had assaulted all
Page 20 of 24
being armed with deadly weapons. It is trite law that
recovery of weapon of offence is not material when there is
clear ocular and medical evidence regarding the assault. At
best, it would go down as a lapse in investigation, the
advantage of which cannot, at least in the present case, be
taken by the defence.
21. Coming to the spot of occurrence, it is alleged that
the version of witnesses varies in this regard. PW-4 stated
as follows:
“We came via Kampali Chhak, old Bus stand while
we were passing the corporation Road and were
between Mochi Sahi and Patrapeta Sahi, suddenly
the accused persons came out from behind the
cabin armed with deadly weapons.”
Such statement was not shaken in cross-examination. PW-8
stated as follows:
“We passed old bus stand and reached the Corporation
Road. While we were near a cabin, Rameya Sethi,
Kailash Ghadei, Naryan Ghadei, Ashok Naik, Manasa
Bisoi, Kamaraju Lingam and some others suddenly
came out to the road armed with Bhujali, swords, and
other weapons.”
PW-9 stated as follows:
Page 21 of 24
“We took the route via old Bus stand and Corporation
Road. When we were nearing the Electric Office on
Corporation Road, suddenly accused Rameya Sethi,
Kailash Ghadei, Manasa Bisoyi and other accused
persons came out from the darkness behind the cabins
armed with deadly weapons.”
We find that all the three witnesses have
consistently stated that the spot of occurrence was on the
Corporation Road. We fail to understand what more is
necessary to describe the spot of occurrence.
22. Much has been argued about the previous enmity
between the parties as being a reason for false implication.
The evidence relating to the incident taking place on the
previous day has been highlighted in this regard. It is well
settled that previous enmity works both ways. It militates
against normal human conduct that by not naming the
actual assailants and naming others, the victims of crime
would allow the real assailants to escape. That apart,
previous enmity itself provides the motive for the
subsequent assault. Of course, in a case of direct evidence,
motive is not very relevant but in the context of the ground
of previous enmity raised, it assumes significance.
Page 22 of 24
23. The genesis of the occurrence lies in the incident
that took place on previous day i.e., 22.09.1997. The matter
appears to have arisen out of eve-teasing habit of accused
Rameya and his associates, the victim being the daughter of
the deceased. This was the bone of contention between the
parties which led to red flags being posted by the accused
persons near the house of the deceased with threats being
given to his mother of causing his death. This was further
followed by hurling of bombs causing injury to the brother
and nephew of the deceased. Thus, as on the date of
occurrence, there was serious ill-feeling between the two
groups.
24. We thus find that none of the grounds raised by the
accused appellants to find fault with the judgment of the
trial Court are valid or tenable so as to persuade us to take
a different view. On the contrary, we find the evidence
overwhelming and cogent, clearly pointing at the guilt of the
accused appellants. Having examined the evidence on
record independently and considered the same vis-Ã -vis the
Page 23 of 24
contentions raised by the parties before us, we find the
prosecution case fully established to the effect that on the
fateful night the accused appellants assaulted Nunu Pujari
(PW-4) causing injuries on his person and hacked the
deceased- Prakash Behera jointly by assaulting him with
deadly weapons causing his death. The impugned judgment
of conviction therefore, warrants no interference.
25. In the result, the appeals fail and are therefore,
dismissed. The accused appellants being on bail, their bail
bonds be cancelled and they be taken to custody forthwith
to serve the remaining part of their sentence.
……………………………………
(Sashikanta Mishra, J)
Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree.
…………………………………….
(Manash Ranjan Pathak, J)
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 12th March, 2026/A.K. Rana/P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Page 24 of 24
Date: 12-Mar-2026 13:38:56