Allowed¶67

Manguli Bhal v. State

Orissa HC19 Aug 2025CRA/370/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 395 IPC dacoity conviction set aside; non-explanation of injuries on accused; interested and inimical witnesses; suppression of genesis and origin of occurrence; right of private defence cannot be ruled out; benefit of doubt; acquittal; bail bonds discharged; Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394; Krishna Padhi v. State of Orissa (1992) 5 OCR 529; Veli Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; CRA No. 370 of 1992; Kendrapara; Pattamundai; appeal allowed 19.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 395 IPC set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges; bail bonds discharged. ¶67

Manguli Bhal Vs State — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction and sentence under Section 395 IPC set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges; bail bonds discharged.

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused, coupled with interested and inimical testimony, undermines the prosecution case such that the conviction under Section 395 IPC cannot be sustained. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

The prosecution case suffers from a vital infirmity: injuries sustained by the accused (including accused Kalia) during the same occurrence were not explained, and the prosecution witnesses either denied knowledge of such injuries or gave vague and evasive statements, casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The proposition is not that every non-explained injury vitiates the prosecution, but where such omission is coupled with interested testimony and suppression of material facts, it becomes fatal.

¶54

Key takeaways

The prosecution witnesses were either related to the informant or otherwise inimically disposed towards the accused, and their consistent silence regarding medically proven injuries to the accused indicates suppression of material aspects and grave suspicion that a true and fair account of the incident was not presented.ratio¶58
The defence offered a plausible explanation that the occurrence was not unilateral and the accused too sustained injuries, indicating an altercation in which the right of private defence could not be ruled out; the informant's affidavit omitted any reference to injuries to the accused, confirming suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence.ratio¶61
The prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 395 IPC against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt; the benefit of doubt must go to the appellants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Sections 374(2)/382 CrPC against judgment dated 28.10.1992 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara (Sessions Trial Case No. 214/8 of 1990, arising out of G.R. Case No. 593 of 1989) convicting ten accused under Section 395 IPC and sentencing each to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (three months' RI in default), while acquitting sixty others. Allowed by the High Court of Orissa (S.S. Mishra, J.) on 19.08.2025. The Court found a vital infirmity in the prosecution case: injuries sustained by accused Kalia in the same occurrence went unexplained, compounded by witnesses related to the informant or inimically disposed towards the accused, whose consistent silence about medically proven injuries indicated suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence; the defence version of a mutual altercation in which the right of private defence could not be ruled out was plausible. Relying on Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394, and Krishna Padhi v. State of Orissa, (1992) 5 OCR 529, the Court held the charge under Section 395 IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted them of all charges and discharged their bail bonds. Four appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal, and the informant had filed an affidavit stating the dispute stood amicably resolved.

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRA No. 370 of 1992

¶3

AFR

¶4

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 382 of

¶5

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

¶6

Manguli Bhal & Others ……. Appellants

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate

¶10

For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, ASC

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶13

Date of Hearing:29.07.2025 :Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025

¶14

S.S. Mishra, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the

¶15

judgment dated 28.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

¶16

Judge, Kendrapara in Sessions Trial Case No. 214/8 of 1990 arising out

¶17

of G.R. Case No. 593 of 1989, whereby the appellants along with others

¶18

were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and

¶19

sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and

¶20

to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The remaining sixty accused persons were acquitted of all charges.

¶21

2. Pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025, the IIC, Pattamundai Model Police Station has submitted a written report dated 15.07.2025, inter alia, informing this Court that appellant no.2-Jagir Bhal, appellant no.4-Pada @ Padmanav Nayak, appellant no.7-Batakrushna Pradhan and appellant no. 10-Pati @ Patitapaban Bhal have already expired, and the rest of the appellants are residing in their village. Along with the report, the death certificates have been submitted, which were taken on record.

¶22

3. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶23

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.07.1989 at about 3:30 PM, one Raj Kishore Pradhan (P.W.5) was allegedly chased by accused No. 09 Jadumani Rout (later acquitted) along with his wife and daughter while he was on his way to mill paddy. It was alleged that they were

¶24

Page2 of 13

¶25

armed with thenga and tenta and intended to assault him. The said Raj Kishore ran towards the village and took shelter, following which the accused persons, alleged to be seventy in number, armed with weapons like tenta, farsa, and sticks, chased him and reportedly pelted stones, broke open the doors of houses, entered therein, assaulted some villagers and removed household articles and agriculture produce.

¶26

5. The oral information regarding the occurrence was given by P.Ws. 16 to 17, the then officer-in-charge of Pattamundai Police Station, at about 7 PM on the same day, which was reduced into writing and registered as the plain paper FIR. Investigation ensued and ChargeSheet was filed against seventy persons under Sections 454 and 395 IPC, resulting in their commitment to face trial before the Court of Sessions.

¶27

6. In support of the charges, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. P.Ws. 1 to 12, 15 and 16 were projected as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 13 was the doctor who had allegedly examined the injured persons. P.W. 14 was a seizure witness, and P.W. 17 was the Investigating Officer. The defence examined four witnesses and relied

¶28

Page3 of 13

¶29

on several documents, including injury reports, which showed that several accused persons had sustained injuries during the occurrences.

¶30

7. The defence case was one of total denial and pleaded that a petty quarrel between two rival village factions occurred on the village road, in the course of which both sides sustained injuries. It was further contended that no incident of house trespass or dacoity occurred and that the case was the result of group enmity, a counterblast to other proceedings between the parties.

¶31

8. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, came to a finding that there indeed existed deep-seated enmity and party faction between the complainant side and the accused persons, which was evident from the FIR and other materials on record. It was noted that most of the prosecution witnesses were related and interested, and there were proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the parties. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons, and that many of the injuries on vital parts of the body gave rise to a presumption that the genesis of the occurrence had been suppressed.

¶32

Page4 of 13

¶33

9. The trial Court noted significant inconsistencies in the evidence

¶34

of prosecution witnesses. While P.W.5 alleged assault and injuries, no

¶35

injury was found on him by the doctor. P.W.4 claimed injury from a stone thrown by another person who is not before the Court. P.W.6 sustained a simple injury, while others had either no injury or their injuries were not supported by medical evidence. The trial Court despite these infirmities, chose to disbelieve the case under Section 454 IPC but found the appellants guilty under Section 395 IPC relying primarily on the evidence of P.W.11, who claimed to have seen the accused looting articles from her house. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

¶36

“Thus in the net result the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case against any of the accused persons conclusively for the offence u/s 454 I.P.C. and the prosecution has also equally failed to bring home the offence conclusively u/s, 395 I.P.C, against accused No.1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,13,16,17,18,19,20,22,2 4,25,26,29,31,32,53,34,33,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, 45,46,47,43,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62,63 ,64,65,67,69 and 70. They are given benefit of doubt. They are found not guilty and are set at liberty by virtue of section 235 Cr.P.C.

¶37

Page5 of 13

¶38

Accused persons serial No, 2 Manguli Bhol, 3 Jagir Bhal, 21 Parsuram Jena, 23 Padmanava Nayak 27 Benudhar Pradhan, 28 Asok Kumar Pradhan, 30 Batakrushna Pradhan, 60 Paramananda Das, 66 Rabindra Kumar Samal and 68 ,Patitapaban Bhal are found guilty for the offence u/s 395 I.P.C. and are convicted thereunder. Place the accused persons for hearing on the question of sentence.

¶39

Heard the accused convicts and their advocate on the question of sentence. They have sought for a lenient consideration of imparting sentence. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and socio economic rural life condition of the accused convicts, each of the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years term and each of them are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000/- (One thousand). In default of payment of fine amount, the defaulting accused convicts are to undergo further R.I. for three months term.”

¶40

10. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has strenuously argued that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the serious lapse of the prosecution in not explaining the injuries to the accused persons. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 , wherein it was held that non-explanation of injuries

¶41

sustained by the accused at the time of the occurrence or during the

¶42

Page6 of 13

¶43

altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can infer that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence.

¶44

11. Further reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishna Padhi and Others v. State of Orissa, reported in (1992) 5 OCR 529 , wherein it was held that non-explanation of injuries assumes greater importance when the witnesses are inimical and the defence version is more probable. It is submitted that in the present case, the evidence of P.W.11, on which conviction was based, was itself shaky and suffered from exaggeration and lack of corroboration, thus not fitting into the category of wholly reliable evidence as contemplated in Veli Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 .

¶45

12. More significantly, the informant himself, namely Basant Kumar Pradhan, has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the dispute between the parties has long been resolved amicably and they now live harmoniously. It is also mentioned that four of the convicted appellants have already passed away during the pendency of the appeal and the rest are old and ailing, living peacefully with their families.

¶46

Page7 of 13

¶47

13. On careful consideration of the materials on record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the prosecution's case suffers from a vital infirmity namely, the failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons during the same occurrence. The record reveals that the accused Kalia sustained injuries in course of the incident, which the prosecution has not even attempted to explain. The prosecution witnesses have either denied knowledge of such injuries or offered vague and evasive statements, which cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case.

¶48

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 has categorically held that nonexplanation of injuries found on the accused by the prosecution assumes significant importance, especially in cases where the defence version competes in probability with that of the prosecution and the evidence comes from interested or inimical witnesses. The failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation for the injuries found on the accused, when the same could have been reasonably explained, indicates that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, and the

¶49

Page8 of 13

¶50

evidence presented cannot be wholly relied upon. The Hon’ble Court held thus-

¶51

“The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State prosecution case. of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima (supra) there may be cases where the nonexplanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.”

¶52

Page9 of 13

¶53

15. The proposition is not that every non-explained injury vitiates the

¶54

prosecution, but where such omission is coupled with interested testimony and suppression of material facts, it becomes fatal. As observed in Krushna v. State of Orissa , reported in ( 1992) 5 OCR 529, which relies upon and reaffirms the aforementioned decision, the Court cautioned against relying on witnesses who deny seeing injuries on the accused, despite their visible nature, as such conduct undermines their credibility and neutrality. The Court held thus-

¶55

“Added to it, we find that the accused Kalia had sustained an injury. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that wher-ever there is an injury on an accused which is explained, the prosecution case is bound to fail. Where there is failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused, it may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. This view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Mohar Rai and Bharat Rai v. The State of Bihar: AIR 1963 SC 1281. Non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution affects the prosecution. (See Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar: AIR 1976 SC 2263). Such non-explanation assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witness or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where, however, the evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from false-hood, the mere fact that the injuries are

¶56

Page10 of 13

¶57

not explained by the prosecu-tion cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and conse-quently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (See Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P.: 1990 (11) Crimes 584). Where it is shown that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented a true version, the prosecution case becomes vulnerable. Non-explanationof the injuries may not affect the prosecution case as a whole, but the defence can contend on the basis of nonexplanation of injuries found on the accused that the accused could have had a right of privets defence or at any rate a reasonable doubt arises in this regard.”

¶58

16. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from these very defects. Witnesses examined by the prosecution are either related to the informant or otherwise inimically disposed towards the accused. Their consistent silence regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, particularly when the injury is serious and is medically proven, indicates suppression of material aspects and raises grave suspicion as to whether the prosecution has presented a true and fair account of the incident.

¶59

17. Furthermore, the defence has provided a plausible explanation that the occurrence was not unilateral and that the accused had also sustained injuries during the scuffle, which could indicate an altercation

¶60

Page11 of 13

¶61

where the right of private defence cannot be ruled out. The affidavit filed by the informant also omits any reference to injuries to the

¶62

accused, further confirming suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence.

¶63

18. Given the above, it is no longer safe to rely upon the prosecution's version to sustain conviction. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses stands compromised on account of suppression, omission, and interested testimony. The legal position being clear from a catena of decisions referred above, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. In view of the foregoing discussion and in light of the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶64

19. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 395 IPC against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the appellants.

¶65

20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court are hereby set aside. The appellants are

¶66

Page12 of 13

¶67

acquitted of all the charges and the bail bonds furnished by them stand discharged.

¶68

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶69

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 19^th August, 2025/Ashok

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Aug-2025 10:22:37 Page13 of 13

Manguli Bhal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manguli Bhal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debendra Sasmal Vs State

Kanduri Vs State

Anil Vs State

Gafar Vs State

Ajay Vs State

Mahadeb Vs State