IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 132 of 2002 (An application under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the judgment and order dated 30.09.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. Case No. 17/7 of 2001) AFR Lambu Pradhan …. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ….. Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case through hybrid mode: For Appellant : Mr. Ramakanta Sarangi For Respondent : Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate __________________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA Date of Hearing :17.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment:31.03.2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The present appellant and one Kapila Pradhan faced trial in ST Case No.17/07 of 2001 in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh for committing the murder of one Sankar Mukhi. While Kapila Pradhan was acquitted, the present appellant was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. On 14.08.2000, in village Karlaga, Manoharpur, under Kundheigola Police Station in the district of Deogarh, one Balaram Behera came and informed the informant, Naveen Mukhi that his father had been killed by the appellant. It so happened that on that day at about 5 pm while the father of the informant, Sankar Mukhi had gone to Manoharpur to the house of the present appellant, he had an altercation with the appellant. As a result, the appellant and his father Kapil Pradhan assaulted the deceased by means of an iron rod and killed him in the muga field of Balaram Behera. Hearing about the incident from Balaram Behera, the informant went to the spot and found his father lying dead. He therefore went to the Khairpali outpost and submitted a written report. The report was entered in the Station Diary and investigation was taken up. On the next day, the report was forwarded to the Kundheigola Police Station, where P.S. Case No.53 dated 15.08.2000 was registered under sections 302/34 IPC and since the ASI of Khairpali outpost had already taken up investigation, the same was endorsed in the FIR. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his father under sections 302/34 IPC. 3. The plea of the accused persons was of denial and false implication. The accused persons additionally took the plea that while returning from the liquor den with the deceased, the latter had abused him. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited eight documents. That apart, prosecution proved five material objects. Defence, on the other hand, examined two witnesses. 5. After, analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court was of the view that prosecution had successfully established its case against the present appellant though not against the co-accused, Kapila Pradhan. Basing on the medical evidence as well as the eyewitness account along with so-called admission of the accused, the trial Court arrived at the finding that accused, Lambu Pradhan inflicted the brutal blows on the person of the deceased, Sankar Mukhi with the iron rod, causing his death. Having held so, the trial Court, while acquitting the co-accused Kapila Pradhan, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 6. Heard Sri Ramakanta Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 7. Sri Sarangi assails the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds. i) The FIR relied upon by the prosecution is entirely doubtful and if the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are read together, it will be easily seen that the FIR was antedated and created only for the case. Page 5 of 15 ii) The trial Court has ignored the vital aspect that the spot of occurrence is entirely doubtful, particularly in the absence of any spot map being prepared by the investigating officer. iii) The nearby house owners were not examined at all, who could have independently corroborated the version of the informant and other witnesses. iv) The trial Court completely ignored the defence evidence without any justified reason, which would have shown the falsity of the prosecution case. 8. Per contra, Sri P.S. Nayak would argue that the FIR was lodged at the outpost at about 8 p.m. It was forwarded to the Police Station on the next day morning at about 7 a.m. Since the FIR could not have been registered at the outpost, it cannot be said that there was any delay in registration of the FIR. Secondly, it is borne out from the evidence on record that PW-2 orally reported the matter, which was reduced to writing by the ASI. The ASI, after having made a Station Diary Entry, immediately took up investigation. As regards the spot of occurrence, Sri P.S. Naik would refer to the evidence of PW-2 to submit that the spot of occurrence is the muga field near the house of Balaram Behera and there is no doubt in such regard. Since PW-1 had witnessed the occurrence and had stated so before the Court, non-examination of the nearby house owners cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have taken note of the rival contentions. We have also perused the case record and the impugned judgment. As already stated, PW-2 stated in his evidence that at about 5 p.m. in the evening, Balaram Behera (PW-1) came and informed that the accused persons had murdered his father in front of his house. PW-2 came to know about it at about 5.30 p.m. and went to the house of Balaram Behera. He found his father lying dead with mark of assault all over his body. Then he went to Khairpali outpost and verbally reported the matter before the ASI about the occurrence. Page 7 of 15 The ASI reduced his report into writing, read over and explained its contents and thereafter he put his signature. The FIR is marked Ext.2. Significantly, it does not contain any endorsement regarding it being scribed by the ASI, though it contains the signature of PW-2. 10. PW-1, Balaram Behera gives a different version. He says that the occurrence took place at about 5 p.m. in his muga field near his house and at that time he was taking his food. Hearing hue and cry, he came out of his house and found accused Lambodar chasing the deceased Sankar Mukhi holding an iron rod. In course of chasing, while the deceased was about to enter into his house, accused Lambu assaulted him with iron rod, due to which the deceased fell down. After the deceased fell down, Lambu assaulted him with the same iron rod several times. The other accused Kapila, who is the father of accused Lambu, was also chasing the accused with his son. He thereafter stated that he went to the house of PW-2 and found him absent in the house for which he informed about the occurrence to his wife. Page 8 of 15 In cross-examination, he stated that Bipin Behera accompanied him to the police station, where he verbally reported the matter to police and that his report was reduced to writing by the zamadar. This raises a doubt as to who actually reported the matter leading to registration of the PS Case. While PW-2 claims to have visited the outpost and reported the matter which was reduced to writing by the ASI and forwarded to the police station on the next day for registration, PW-1 on the other hand, stated that he went to the police station and reported the matter which was reduced to writing by the zamadar. This suggests that two different reports were lodged. Prosecution has however, relied only upon one FIR marked Ext-2. If the report forwarded from the outpost was registered, what happened to the FIR lodged directly by PW-1 in the Police Station? This does create a doubt as regards the authenticity of the FIR more so, as it has not been endorsed in the FIR as to who scribed it. There is no reason why the ASI would not make the necessary endorsement on the body of the FIR if he had actually scribed it. 11. Coming to the spot of occurrence, according to PW-1 who appears to be the eyewitness, the spot of occurrence is the muga field near his house. In cross- examination, he stated that the houses of Ghana Behera, Lambodar Behera, Rajib Pani and Bijay Behera are near his house. House of Ghana Behera is adjacent to muga field. The place of occurrence is at a distance of 20 to 30 cubits from the village road. PW-2 did not specify the spot of occurrence. PW-3, who claims to have seen the occurrence, also did not specify the exact spot of occurrence. Surprisingly, the I.O. admitted that he had not prepared a spot map. This is a serious lapse in investigation, more so when there is doubt regarding the spot of occurrence. In this context, if the defence evidence is looked into, it will be seen that according to DW-1, there is also a kolatha guda of the accused and other neighbours behind their houses and that he found Shankar Mukhi lying dead in the kolatha guda of Balaram Behera. Page 10 of 15 12. Another important aspect that strikes to the mind of the Court is the statement of PW-3, who also claims to have seen the occurrence. She stated that both the accused persons were assaulting the deceased with iron rod and that she gave water to the deceased, who had fallen down near the house of Balaram Behera (PW-1). PW- 1 however, did not whisper a word about PW-3 or of she having given any water to the deceased at the spot. He specifically stated that no one other than him had seen the occurrence. This is a major contradiction. That apart, PW-1 stated in cross-examination that his aunt Tribeni called him and he went straight to the place of occurrence, which also casts a doubt as to if PW-1 had actually seen the occurrence. Said Tribeni was also never examined, which further weakens the prosecution case. 13. It is further seen that according to prosecution, the accused gave recovery of the weapon of offence, which is an iron rod. In this connection, the evidence of the I.O., PW-7 is to the effect that he arrested the accused persons and accused Lambu while in police custody, voluntarily stated before him in presence of the witnesses about the occurrence and also admitted that he had concealed the iron rod in his house. So, saying, he led the witnesses and the I.O. to his house and gave recovery of the iron rod from the roof of the veranda of his house. His statement was recorded and proved as Ext.-6. PW-7 has though referred to the statement being recorded in the presence of witnesses, yet no such witness was examined in the case to prove the alleged discovery of the iron rod. That apart, the house of the accused himself cannot be treated as a place that would be considered fit for concealment, rather it would be the first place likely to be searched by the investigating agency. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to place reliance on the evidence regarding disclosure of the weapon of offence. 14. Having held so, we find that there is evidence to show that the deceased had himself gone to the house of accused, Lambu and picked up a quarrel. This suggests that he was the aggressor and that in course of such quarrel, there was some fighting between them resulting in bodily injuries on the deceased, ultimately due to which he died. If such is the evidence, it cannot be conclusively held that the accused was actuated with the intention or motive to do away with the life of the deceased. It would rather be more reasonable to suppose that the deceased having himself picked up quarrel with the accused by going to his house, the accused struck some blows on his body by means of an iron rod most probably during an altercation that ultimately led to his death. We have also perused the evidence of the autopsy surgeon PW-8 who listed the following injuries on the deceased. “(i) right humour found to be fractured above the elbow joint. (ii) right parietal bone was also found to be fracture and brain below it found to be lacerated. (iii) Liver, spleen and kidney found to be congested. (iv) Stoack and intestine found to be contained undigested food particles. (v) Heart’s left ventricle was filled with blood, right ventricle was empty.” 15. As can be seen, there were two bruises on his left nipple and two on his right side back. Further, there was a lacerated injury on his right ear lobe. According to the doctor, the death was caused due to laceration of brain and that all the internal injuries are grievous in nature which could have been inflicted by a blunt object like an iron rod. There is thus no dispute that the death occurred due to the assault by the accused on the deceased by means of the iron rod. 16. On the basis of what has been discussed above and the analysis made, we are of the view that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant and an altercation most probably took place between them. It further appears that in course of such quarrel, the appellant chased the deceased and assaulted him. The medical evidence clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by a blunt object like iron rod and that the death was homicidal in nature. Thus, the involvement of the appellant in the occurrence stands established. 17. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact that the circumstances under which the occurrence took place cannot be lost sight of. The materials on record indicate absence of premeditation and suggest that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel. It also appears that the deceased himself had gone to the house of the appellant and picked up quarrel. There is no evidence to show that the appellant had any prior intention to cause death or to inflict such injury as was likely to cause death. In such view of the matter, it would be reasonable to hold that the act of the appellant was committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without pre-planning. The case therefore, comes within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 18. From a conspectus of the analysis of evidence, contentions raised and the discussion made, we hold that the impugned judgment warrants interference by way of modifying the conviction of accused Lambodhar from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 19. The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in ST Case No. 17/07 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC is modified to one under Section 304-II of IPC. Further the sentence of imprisonment of life is modified to sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years with usual set-off. The accused appellant being on bail, his bail bonds be cancelled and he be taken into custody for serving the remaining part of the sentence, if any. .......................................... (Sashikanta Mishra, J) Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree. …........................................ (Manash Ranjan Pathak, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st March, 2026/A.K. Rana, P.A. Designation: P.A.