Samaru Jal Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2025)

Samaru Jal Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CRLA No.63 of 2005 (Dhruba Charan Sahu) allowed: conviction under S.302/34 IPC set aside, acquitted with benefit of doubt, discharged from bail bond. JCRLA No.54 of 2005 (Samaru Jal) and CRLA No.283 of 2006 (Padmalochan Dharua) dismissed: convictions under S.302/34 IPC and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life confirmed; both, being on bail, directed to surrender forthwith before the learned trial Court failing which steps to be taken for arrest and remand to jail custody.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution successfully established that the deceased Swapneswar Sahu met with a homicidal death. +2 more

Court's answer

The deceased met with a homicidal death; the findings recorded by the learned trial Court to that effect, resting on the inquest report (Ext.1), the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8) and the post-mortem report (Ext.9), are quite justified.

Ratio / Principle

The evidence of the solitary witness P.W.5 cannot be disbelieved in its entirety merely because he implicated three co-accused whose acquittal the trial Court ordered; being a close relation (son of the deceased), he would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.

Key takeaways

The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not tenable; even if a portion of a witness's evidence is deficient, conviction can be maintained on the sufficient residue notwithstanding acquittal of other co-accused persons.ratio¶15
Where the grains and chaffs are mixed, it is incumbent upon the Court to separate the grains from the chaffs and act upon evidence free from embellishment supported by material corroboration; insufficiency in some respects does not compel total disregard of the witness's evidence.ratio¶15
As regards Samaru Jal and Padmalochan Dharua, the evidence of P.W.5 attributing assault to them was consistent from the first disclosure before the informant P.W.6 (finding place in the F.I.R.) onwards, distinguishing them from the improved version against the co-accused.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeals (Orissa High Court, S.K. Sahoo & Chittaranjan Dash JJ., judgment dated 15.04.2025) against common judgment dt. 22.01.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bolangir convicting three appellants under S.302/34 IPC (rigorous imprisonment for life) for the murder of Swapneswar Sahu on 11.11.1996 at village Sujia, Loisingha P.S., while acquitting three co-accused and all accused of the S.120-B IPC conspiracy charge. HELD: (i) homicidal death conclusively established on the inquest report, post-mortem report and evidence of the doctor (P.W.8); (ii) the entire case rested on solitary eye-witness P.W.5, son of the deceased — although the trial Court disbelieved his version implicating the three co-accused, the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not tenable; a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit, and where grains and chaff are mixed the Court must separate them and act on the corroborated residue; (iii) the roles of Samaru Jal (Barchha/spear thrust into abdomen) and Padmalochan Dharua (Talwar/sword blows to neck) were consistent from the first narration to the informant and the F.I.R., through the S.164 Cr.P.C. statement, to deposition, and stood corroborated by medical evidence — convictions and life sentences confirmed and the appeals dismissed, with a direction to surrender; (iv) the attribution of a bhujali blow to Dhruba Charan Sahu was an improvement discrepant to a material particular, escalating him from instigator to direct assailant — benefit of doubt extended, conviction set aside and his appeal allowed; discharged from bail bond. Amicus Curiae honorarium of Rs.10,000/- awarded to Ms. Tapaswini Sinha.