Dismissed

State v. Manoj Kumar Pradhan

Orissa HC11 Jul 2023CRLLP/65/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a leave to appeal petition filed by the State against a trial court judgment that acquitted accused persons of murder and other offences while convicting them for affray and voluntary causing grievous hurt. The court found no sufficient grounds to overturn the trial court's view that the accused did not join the mob with intent to murder.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the trial court's judgment is dismissed.

State Vs Manoj Kumar Pradhan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No. 65 of 2012

¶3

State of Orissa

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Manoj Kumar Pradhan and Another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

11.07.2023

The State is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29^th June, 2010 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Phulbani in S.T. Case No.174/64 of 2009 arising out of Raikia P.S. Case No.58 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.210 of 2008. By the impugned judgment while acquitting the Opposite Parties-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148/201/341/342 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, the trial Court proceeded to convict them for the offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 147 of IPC. It sentenced them to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for six months for the offences under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC, and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo RI for three months for the offences under Section 147 of IPC.

¶16

The State is seeking leave to appeal only to the extent that the trial Court has acquitted the Opposite Parties for the remaining offences as noted hereinbefore.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

The case of the prosecution was that to avenge the death of Swami Laxmanananda on 23^rd August, 2008, the Opposite Parties formed an unlawful assembly, set fire to the houses of the Christians and brutally assaulted some of the Christian persons, which included P.W.6, who happened to be the wife of the deceased. After one such burning incident, she along with her husband and two minor daughters are stated to have hidden inside the forest to save their lives. After knowing of the killing of three persons in her village, P.W.6 and the deceased along with their children left by a bicycle towards Bhanjanagar between 2 and 3 pm on 25^th August, 2008. At the Barepanga square, between 4 and 5 pm, the two accused (Opposite Parties) along with certain others are stated to have obstructed them. The accused are alleged to have called some persons of village Tiangia on their mobile phone. Thereafter, about 100 persons of that village arrived and started assaulting her husband with various deadly weapons. After the husband fell down having received severe injuries, the mob covered him with dried firewood and set his body on fire by sprinkling kerosene. According to P.W.6, the Opposite Parties actively participated in commission of the said crime.

¶19

The prosecution relied on the depositions of P.W.6 as well as the child witness P.W.9, the minor daughter. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of P.W.4, who was supposedly a chance witness.

¶20

A very detailed analysis was undertaken of the above evidence by the trial Court. While their evidence, as corroborated by the medical evidence, did prove that the deceased met a homicidal death at the hands of a mob consisting of several persons, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had joined the said mob

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

with the intention to murdering the deceased. Consequently, while concluding that the accused shared a common object with the unlawful assembly to cause hurt to the deceased the trial Court convicted them of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC, and Section 147 of IPC. However, the trial Court acquitted them of the other offences.

¶23

This Court has again examined the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State and finds that the view taken by the trial Court is certainly a plausible one. The evidence of P.Ws.4, 6 and 9 do not lead to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties should be held guilty of the other offences for which they have been acquitted.

¶24

Consequently, the Court is not satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out by the State for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Subhasmita

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Jul-2023 11:02:26

¶31

Page 3 of 3

State v. Manoj Kumar Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Manoj Kumar Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dillip Ku.Behera Vs State

Naba Behera Vs State

Dillip Ku.Das Vs State

State of Orissa Vs Sanatan Pradhan

State Vs Sushant Nahak

State Vs Subash Ch.Parida