State of Orissa Vs Satyananda Badhei

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CRLLP No. 136 of 2007

¶4

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

¶5

…. State of Odisha Appellant (s) -versus…. Satyananda Badhei & Ors. Respondent (s)

¶6

Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode :

¶7

: For Appellant (s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Adv. along with associate

¶8

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶9

DATE OF HEARING: -06.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -17.04.2026

¶10

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

¶11

1. The present CRLLP has been filed by the State of Orissa seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, thereby reversing the conviction recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bargarh vide judgment dated 23.12.1994.

¶12

I. FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶13

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.02.1994 at about 8:00 A.M., the informant, Budhu Pradhan (P.W.10), along with his son, Gobinda

¶14

Page 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶16

Pradhan (P.W.11), and grandson, Girish Pradhan (P.W.1), had gone to their agricultural land at Bisipali.

¶17

3. Upon their arrival, the respondents, along with five other co-accused persons, being armed with weapons such as an iron rod, axe, and lathis, came to the spot, warned them to vacate the land, and thereafter assaulted P.W.11. Chhinu Bisi (P.W.3), a farm servant, and one Mihir Panigrahi, who came to the rescue, were also present at the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the spot.

¶18

4. On the basis of the report lodged by P.W.10, Barpali P.S. Case No.15 dated 01.02.1994 was registered at about 11:30 A.M. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all ten accused persons for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶19

5. The case was committed and tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bargarh in S.T. Case No.131/7 of 1994. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶20

6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the testimony of the injured witness (P.W.11), the informant (P.W.10), and P.W.6 to be credible, and accordingly convicted the present respondents for the offence under Section 307 IPC, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months. The remaining co-accused persons were acquitted.

¶21

Page 2

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶23

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the respondents preferred the Criminal Appeal No.74 of 1994 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh.

¶24

8. The learned lower appellate court, by judgment dated 21.12.2006, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondents. It held that the prosecution had failed to establish the intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC. It further held that the nature of injuries did not support the allegation of a serious assault with deadly weapons. It also found the evidence of P.W.6 to be doubtful on account of his belated examination. The nonexamination of Mihir Panigrahi, a material independent witness, was held to cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. The medical evidence was found not to support the manner of assault as alleged. It was further held that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had not been satisfactorily established.

¶25

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, the State has filed the present appeal.

¶26

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

¶27

10. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶28

i. It was contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, in the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2006, did not properly appreciate the medical evidence on record. It was submitted that P.W.11, an injured witness, sustained injuries on the parietal region of

¶29

Page 3

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶31

the scalp and multiple bruises on the right leg over the tibia and fibula, including lacerated wounds on the scalp, right temporal region and cheek, and a comminuted fracture of the upper third of the right tibia and fibula, along with bruises and swelling on the right forearm and leg. It was further submitted that the said injuries stood proved through the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.14 and were supported by the bed-head tickets.

¶32

ii. It was further submitted that, having regard to the nature of the weapons used, namely an axe, an iron rod and lathis, and the manner of assault, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC stood attracted.

¶33

iii. It was submitted that the respondents were part of an unlawful assembly consisting of ten persons armed with deadly weapons, and that the assault was carried out in furtherance of their common object, inasmuch as accused Satyananda instigated the attack and assaulted the victim with an axe, accused Nilamani struck the victim’s leg with an iron rod, and accused Ramesh and Theku assaulted the victim with lathis and an axe even after he had fallen to the ground.

¶34

iv. It was contended that the learned lower appellate court erred in doubting the reliability of the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that the testimony of P.W.11, being that of an injured witness, inspires confidence and is duly corroborated by other oral evidence on record. It was further submitted that the doubt cast on the evidence of P.W.6 on account of delay in his examination by the Investigating Officer is unsustainable, inasmuch as no question was put to the Investigating Officer during cross-examination seeking an explanation for such

¶35

Page 4

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶37

delay, and therefore no adverse inference could have been drawn on that ground. It was also contended that the non-examination of Mihir Panigrahi does not render the prosecution case doubtful, as the prosecution is not required to examine every witness and the evidence on record is to be assessed on the basis of its quality and not quantity.

¶38

v. It was contended that the learned lower appellate court committed errors in law in the appreciation of the evidence on record. It was submitted that the criticism of the F.I.R. on the ground of lack of detail is misplaced, as it is well settled that an F.I.R. is not expected to be an exhaustive account of the occurrence and need not contain every minute particular.

¶39

vi. It was further submitted that the finding that the prosecution failed to establish motive is unsustainable, inasmuch as the previous enmity referred to in the F.I.R. and the arrival of a group of persons armed with deadly weapons under the leadership of accused Satyananda Badhei clearly indicate the existence of a common object and intent.

¶40

vii. It was also contended that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which are natural with the passage of time, were given undue importance, and that the learned lower appellate court adopted an unduly technical approach in discarding otherwise reliable evidence.

¶41

viii. It was contended that the judgment of the learned lower appellate court is unsustainable in law and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant-State accordingly prayed that this Court grant

¶42

Page 5

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶44

leave to appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal, and restore the conviction of the respondents.

¶45

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

¶46

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions in support of their contentions:

¶47

i. It was contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, in the judgment dated 21.12.2006 rightly found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC, particularly the intention or knowledge to cause death, and that the injuries sustained were not on vital parts of the body so as to indicate such intention.

¶48

ii. It was submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 is doubtful in view of the fact that his name does not find place in the F.I.R. and his statement was recorded at a belated stage, and that the non-examination of Mihir Panigrahi, an independent witness named in the F.I.R., casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

¶49

iii. It was further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault as alleged by the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution failed to establish the origin and genesis of the occurrence, and therefore the acquittal does not warrant interference.

¶50

IV. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BARGARH

¶51

12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, while allowing the Criminal Appeal No.74 of 1994, reappraised the evidence on record and examined whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC were made out.

¶52

Page 6

¶53

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶54

13. The learned court held that the prosecution failed to establish the intention or knowledge to cause death, observing that the injuries sustained by P.W.11 were not of such a nature as to indicate such intention and were not consistent with an assault by deadly weapons in the manner alleged.

¶55

14. It was further observed that the medical evidence did not support the version of a severe assault by a large number of persons armed with weapons, thereby creating doubt regarding the prosecution case.

¶56

15. The learned lower appellate court also found that the evidence of certain witnesses was not reliable. It noted that P.W.6 was not named in the F.I.R. and was examined at a belated stage, casting doubt on his presence at the spot. The court further held that the non-examination of Mihir Panigrahi, an independent witness named in the F.I.R., adversely affected the prosecution case.

¶57

16. The learned court further observed that the prosecution failed to establish the origin and genesis of the occurrence and that material aspects of the incident were not satisfactorily explained.

¶58

17. On the aforesaid findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondents.

¶59

V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

¶60

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶61

Page 7

¶62

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶63

19. The present appeal has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. At this stage, this Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case has been made out for grant of leave under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

¶64

20. In this regard, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar¹ , observed as follows:

¶65

“19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal “shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court”. It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.

¶66

20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.

¶67

21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that

¶68

1 (2008) 9 SCC 475.

¶69

Page 8

¶70

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶71

the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court could not be said to be “perverse” and, hence, no leave should be granted.

¶72

24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the relevant material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on record discloses and review or deeper scrutiny reappreciation, reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High Court, with respect, did neither. In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave.”

¶73

21. Similarly, in Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja² , the Supreme Court observed that at the stage of grant of leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., a prima facie case should be looked into by the High Court without ignoring the materials on record.

¶74

22. It is further well settled that in matters where two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial court unless such findings are unreasonable. The trial

¶75

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 451.

¶76

Page 9

¶77

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶78

judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and observing their demeanour, and therefore the appellate court should be slow to interfere with such findings.

¶79

23. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka³ , the Supreme Court delineated the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal:

¶80

“42. (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶81

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

¶82

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶83

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is

¶84

3 (2007) 4 SCC 415.

¶85

Page 10

¶86

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶87

further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶88

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

¶89

24. Keeping the above principles in mind, this Court proceeds to examine whether a prima facie case for grant of leave is made out.

¶90

25. In the present case, the learned lower appellate court, upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, has found that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC. It held that the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.11 did not support the allegation of a serious assault with deadly weapons or indicate the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. It further observed that the medical evidence was not consistent with the manner of assault as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.

¶91

26. The learned lower appellate court has also found that the evidence of P.W.6 was doubtful, as he was not named in the F.I.R. and was examined at a belated stage without any satisfactory explanation. It has further taken note of the non-examination of Mihir Panigrahi, an independent witness named in the F.I.R., and has held that this omission casts doubt on the prosecution case. The court has also found that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the origin and genesis of the occurrence.

¶92

27. It is also to be noted that the learned trial court had proceeded to convict the respondents primarily on the basis of the testimony of the injured witness and other oral evidence, without adequately

¶93

Page 11

¶94

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶95

reconciling the same with the medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances. The learned lower appellate court, in appeal, was justified in reappreciating the evidence, particularly when the findings of the trial court were not free from doubt.

¶96

28. This Court has considered the aforesaid findings in the light of the evidence on record and finds no reason to take a different view. Though it was contended that the evidence of the injured witness inspires confidence, the same, in the present case, does not stand fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The nature of injuries, as borne out from the medical evidence, does not conclusively establish the intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC. Further, the inconsistencies between the oral evidence and the medical evidence lend support to the conclusion arrived at by the learned lower appellate court.

¶97

29. The infirmities noticed by the learned lower appellate court, including the doubtful presence of P.W.6 and the non-examination of an independent witness, are borne out from the record and cannot be brushed aside. The failure of the prosecution to establish the origin and genesis of the occurrence further weakens its case.

¶98

VI. CONCLUSION:

¶99

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any prima facie case warranting grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court are based on an appreciation of the evidence on record and do not call for interference at this stage. Accordingly, the application for

¶100

Page 12

¶101

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49

¶102

leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the CRLLP stands dismissed .

¶103

31. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶104

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶105

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17^th April, 2026/-

¶106

Page 13

State of Orissa v. Satyananda Badhei

Case brief

What is this about?

State of Orissa v. Satyananda Badhei

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

Mohammad Sonu Vs State of Odisha

Biswajyoti Das Vs State of Odisha

Rajot Patra @ Rajat Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Sambit Ray Vs State of Odisha

Sankar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bidyadhar Dhal Vs State of Odisha