Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri and Others Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2026)

Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri and Others Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; accused-appellant No. 2 (Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri) and accused-appellant No. 5 (Harish Laguri) ordered set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the surviving appellants, resting entirely on the testimony of the solitary eyewitness informant (P.W.1) despite material contradictions between his deposition and the F.I.R. and absence of corroboration, is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The evidence of the solitary eyewitness (P.W.1), not being free from doubt and lacking corroboration, could not sustain the order of conviction; the trial Court was not correct in placing heavy reliance on it, and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ratio / Principle

Material contradictions and embellishments in P.W.1's version — the F.I.R.'s omission of any assault or of the claimed bhujali attack, and the improbability of the door being reopened on the accused's mere assurance — were overlooked by the trial Court and create reasonable doubt as to the accused persons' complicity.

Key takeaways

No definite motive for the crime was established: even taken as a whole, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about discussions of witchcraft proves nothing and is at best vague, and since the witchcraft allegation had been settled in the village, there was no definite motive for the crime.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal — Murder (double murder of Asadu Munda and Budhini Munda, suspected witchcraft killing) — Conviction under Sections 148, 302/149 & 120-B/149 IPC by Sessions Judge, Keonjhar set aside — Conviction rested entirely on solitary eyewitness (informant, P.W.1) whose deposition materially contradicted the F.I.R. (which mentioned no assault) and found no corroboration; T.I. Parade and discovery-of-weapons evidence disbelieved by trial Court and not contested by State — Reliance on solitary witness permissible (relying on Vadivelu Thevar; Jose; State of U.P. v. Satish; three-fold classification of Lallu Manjhi), but corroboration required unless witness wholly reliable — Alleged motive (conspiracy over witchcraft suspicion, aided by Bihar youths) not proved: evidence of P.W.2/P.W.3 vague, allegation settled in village, hence no definite motive — Trial Court overlooked contradictions and embellishments creating reasonable doubt — Prosecution failed to prove complicity beyond all reasonable doubt — Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; surviving appellants Nos. 2 and 5 ordered set at liberty.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No. 241 of 1998

(In the matter of an appeal from the judgment and order dated 23.06.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 153 of 1997).

Jandu @ Janda Munda (dead) & Ors. …Appellants - versus- State of Odisha … Respondent

Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Appellants : Mr. A.K. Acharya,
Advocate
- versus-
For Respondent : Mr.Debaraj Mohanty,
A.G.A.
-------- --------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 1 of 12

JUDGMENT

12.2.2026

Sashikanta Mishra,J .

Appellants question correctness of the judgment dated 23.06.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 153 of 1997, whereby they were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 & 120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Eight persons, namely, Jandu @ Janda Munda, Jamadar Munda, Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri, Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri, Kanda Laguri @ Turi, Harish Laguri, Naran Munda and Arjun @ Ananda Laguri faced trial. Six out of eight accused were convicted by the trial Court. Out of them, appellant No.1 (Jandu @ Janda Munda), appellant No.3 (Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri) and appellant No.6 (Arjun @ Ananda Laguri) having expired, the appeal has abated against them. Appellant No. 4 (Kanda Laguri) was released prematurely in 2017. Thus, the present appeal is confined only to appellant No.2

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 2 of 12

(Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri) and appellant No.5 (Harish Laguri).

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the

deceased Asadu Munda and his wife Budhini Munda (also deceased) along with their child Guruba were residing in his father-in-law’s (Laxmidhar Munda) house. Raja Munda, the younger brother of the deceased Asadu Munda was also residing with them. On 11.02.1997 midnight, the accused persons went to the house of Asadu and asked for ‘handia’. When Asadu opened the door holding a ‘dibiri’ in his hand, the appellants assaulted him, his wife and their child Guruba inflicting severe injuries on them, as a result of which Asadu and his wife Budhini succumbed to the injuries, but their child survived with cut injuries on his belly after prolonged treatment in the hospital. Raja Munda somehow escaped and hid in the nearby jungle. He came out in the early morning from the jungle and informed other villagers including the Grama Rakhi. The Chowkidar came to their house and finding the same locked, he went up to the roof and after removing the tiles, saw the dead body of Asadu lying inside. Then, he and Raja Munda went

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 3 of 12

to Jhumpura Out-post and lodged the F.I.R. It is the further case of the prosecution that appellant no.1 (Jandu @ Janda Munda) suspected Asadu and his wife Budhini of practising witchcraft and had declared that he would finish them off. He, therefore, contacted some Adivasi youths of Bihar and gave effect to his plan.

On the complaint of Raja Munda, which was reduced into writing, investigation commenced, in course of which complicity of the accused persons having come to light, they were arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against them.

4. The defence plea was of denial.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited thirty eight documents besides proving five material objects. The defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

6. After analyzing the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charges against Jamadar Munda and Naran

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 4 of 12

Munda beyond all reasonable doubt for which they were acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the charges proved against the other accused persons, and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

7. Heard Sri A.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Debaraj Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

8. Sri Acharya would argue that the trial Court committed manifest error in recording the order of conviction basing entirely on the evidence of the informant (P.W.1) even though his version is not at all free from doubt. He further argues that the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence relating to the T.I. Parade and discovery of the weapons of offence. Under such circumstances, there being no further corroboration of the version of the so-called sole eye witness, benefit of doubt ought to have gone in favour of the appellants.

9. Sri Mohanty, on the other hand, would argue that law

is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 5 of 12

of a solitary eye witness. Since the trial Court found the evidence of P.W.1 reliable and trustworthy, the same was rightly relied upon. Sri Mohanty further submits that the prosecution could successfully establish that the accused persons conspired to commit the crime as they suspected the deceased of practising witchcraft and there is ample evidence to show their preparation for committing the crime along with the weapons used therein.

10. It would be apposite to state at the outset that the defence has not disputed the nature of death of Asadu and Budhini of being homicidal in nature. We, therefore, do not deem it necessary to go into the said aspect. Further, the State has not questioned the trial Court’s rejection of the evidence relating to T.I. Parade and discovery of weapons of offence. We, therefore, do not wish to enter into such aspect also.

11. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants relating to the reliance placed by the trial Court on the version of solitary witness (P.W.1). Law is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 6 of 12

witness. This view finds support from the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras¹ and Jose v. State of Kerala² .

The important point is, unless a witness is very reliable, the Court would ordinarily look for corroboration. This point finds support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Satish .³

12. In Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand⁴ the Supreme Court held that the oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely, (i) Wholly reliable, (ii) Wholly unreliable and (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony.

13. Tested on the anvil of the above position of law, it is seen that the informant (P.W.1) is the only eye witness in the case and his evidence has been heavily relied upon by the trial Court. He claims to have seen the accused

1 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13

2 (1973) 3 SCC 472

3 (2005) 3 SCC 114

4 (2003) 2 SCC 401

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 7 of 12

persons, mainly Naresh Laguri catching hold of his brother Asadu holding a ‘bhujali’ and of attempting to assault Asadu with the said weapon. In the F.I.R., however, he has not whispered a word in this regard at all. All that is stated in the F.I.R is that someone asked for ‘handia’, hearing which Asadu opened the door holding a ‘dibiri’. A person wearing a full pant and a sweater stood outside holding a knife and called his friends in Munda language with the intention of killing Asadu. Asadu, his wife Budhuni Munda and Raja Munda (informant) called for help from the villagers shouting that thieves have come, but no one came for fear of elephants. P.W.1 thereafter went away and hid himself in the nearby jungle. If the F.I.R. story is considered, it would be seen that there is no mention of any assault. That apart, the version given before the Court by P.W.1 is entirely different. This contradiction was also confronted to him by the defence during his crossexamination. He also deposed that Asadu escaped from accused Naresh Laguri and closed the door from inside and when the accused persons stated that they will not cause any harm and asked him to open the door, he did open the

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 8 of 12

door. This statement was taken in contradiction by the defence counsel during the cross-examination of I.O (P.W.13), who admitted that P.W.1 had not stated the above fact before him. Even otherwise, it militates against normal human conduct that a person attempted to be assaulted by deadly weapons, such as ‘bhujali’ and sword, would open the door again after managing to avert the assault by closing the door and yet came out of the house again on the mere assurance of the accused persons that they would cause no harm. This is patently unbelievable. The statement that P.W.1 escaped to the nearby jungle, is also doubtful inasmuch as nothing is stated as to how he managed to do so when the accused persons holding deadly weapons were at the door. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the trial Court has overlooked the aforementioned material contradictions and embellishment in the version of P.W.1.

14. Another important aspect is that while P.W.1 has not stated about the motive of the accused persons to do away with the life of the deceased, prosecution has attempted to prove that the accused Janda Munda, a co-villager,

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 9 of 12

suspected the deceased couple of practicing witchcraft for which he conspired with others to commit their murder. In this regard, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 stated that during Magha festival, four persons from Bihar came to her maternal uncle’s house and discussed among themselves that Asadu and Budhuni were practising witchcraft. She further stated that after about eight to ten days, those four persons along with two others came to her house with a bag, which contained knife, bhujali, sword etc. They asked for ‘handia’, which was not available for which they gave her Rs.20/- with which she brought ‘handia’. After consuming ‘handia’, they went to Kankadajodi. Similar is the statement of P.W.3, who is the brother of P.W.2. Even if the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is accepted as a whole, it proves nothing and is at best vague. It can only suggest that the accused persons were discussing about the practise of witchcraft by the deceased couple. Without anything further and showing any nexus between the said discussion and a definite intention of the accused persons to kill the deceased couple, it would be unsafe to rely upon such evidence. The

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 10 of 12

Prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of Gramarakhi (P.W.9), who stated that the accused Jandu, Jamadar and Jairam Munda had alleged that Asadu and his wife were practising witchcraft, but the issue was settled in the village. If the issue was settled, where was the reason, much less a definite motive for the crime.

15. As already stated, the trial Court has overlooked these material contradictions and gaps in the prosecution story, which create a reasonable doubt regarding the complicity of the accused persons in the alleged occurrence.

16. For the reasons indicated above, we are of the considered view that the evidence of P.W.1, not being free from doubt and without corroboration, the trial Court was not correct in placing such heavy reliance on it and in basing the order of conviction thereon. We, therefore, hold the prosecution to have failed in proving its case against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.

17. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant No. 2

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 11 of 12

(Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri) and accused-appellant No.5 (Harish Laguri) be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required to be detained in any other case.

...................................... Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Manash Ranjan Pathak, J.

(Manash Ranjan Pathak,J.)

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 12^th of February, 2026/P.K.Sahoo

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:18:49

C.R.A. No.241 of 1999 Page 12 of 12