Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Gangadhar Mallick

Orissa HC13 Jul 2023CRLLP/93/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the State's special leave petition against an acquittal in a murder case. The Court refused leave to appeal, noting it was not satisfied that grounds for interference existed given the trial court's detailed analysis of inconsistent evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is refused. The petition is dismissed and the impugned judgment acquitting the accused is sustained.

State of Orissa Vs Gangadhar Mallick — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No.93 of 2014

¶3

State of Odisha

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Gangadhar Mallick

¶8

… Opposite Party None

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

Misc. Case No.79 of 2014

¶14

13.07.2023

¶15

For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the CRLLP is condoned.

¶16

CRLLP No.93 of 2014

¶17

The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12^th March 2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2012 acquitting the Opposite Party accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶18

The accused was charged having committed the murder of one Sagar Bindhani, who was stated to be living with the wife of the accused for over five years. The case against the accused was that at around 11 pm on 9^th January 2012, he assaulted the deceased with a wooden lathi and stone on his head and chased him to village Baulmaha and committed his murder there.

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

19 witnesses were examined for the prosecution. Of these, P.Ws.14, 15 and 16 were projected as eye-witnesses. They are supposed to have accompanied the deceased Sagar to the house of

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2023 13:34:46

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

the accused. When the accused started assaulting the deceased with a wooden stick, these witnesses had supposed to have run away. The dead body of the deceased was found on the next morning more than 12 hours later at the spot which is one kilometer away from the house of the accused.

¶24

The trial court undertook a very detailed analysis of the evidence and concluded that although the death of the deceased was homicidal, the statements of P.Ws.9, 14, 15 and 16 suffered from numerous internal contradictions as regards both the injuries caused to the deceased by the accused as well as the weapon used. None of their testimonies could explain the injuries on the legs of the accused. There were clearly improvements made by them over the initial statements made to the police in the course of the investigation. Even the motive for the commission of crime as explained by these witnesses was not free from inconsistencies.

¶25

The prosecution also appears to have failed to prove the actual weapon used for the commission of the offence. While P.W.14 mentioned the weapon to be a medha , which is usually used to thrash paddy, he also mentioned a lathi or hata pauruni which was fitted with an iron ring at the root. As noted by the trial court, these were three distinct weapons although made of wood. The seizure of the weapon at the instance of the accused was unable to be proved through the depositions of P.Ws.4 and 5. Even the Doctor to whom these weapons were shown (P.W.18) admitted that neither the stone stained with blood nor the medha was referred to him for query.

¶26

Thirdly, the trial court noted that the version of eye-witnesses doubtful on account of the gap between the time when the

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2023 13:34:46

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

witnesses saw the assault on the deceased by the accused and the discovery of the body of the deceased more than 12 hours later at a spot one kilometer away. Therefore, the possibility of the fatal assault on the deceased being at the hands of someone else could not be ruled out.

¶31

Having carefully examined the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, this Court is not satisfied that the grounds have been made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the trial court. The analysis of the evidence undertaken by the trial court does not appear to be suffering from any from legal infirmity.

¶32

Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. The petition is dismissed.

¶33

S.K. Guin

¶34

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2023 13:34:46

¶37

Page 3 of 3

State of Orissa v. Gangadhar Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Gangadhar Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Manoj Kumar Pradhan

State of Orissa Vs Sanatan Pradhan

State Vs Sushant Nahak

State of Orissa Vs Amita Baitha

State of Odisha Vs D.Anita@Nani@Pramila Pradhan

State of Odisha Vs Biswanath Pendenti