IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 32 of 2002 ODHC010011672002 [An application under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the judgment and order dated 08.04.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh] AFR 1. Pradeep Kumar Danga 2. Dillip Kumar Danga (Dead) …. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ….. Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case through hybrid mode: For Appellant : Mr. S.N. Mishra(4), Amicus Curiae For Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, Addl. Standing Counsel __________________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA Date of Hearing :25.08.2026 :: Date of Judgment:01.09.2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The appellants, Pradeep Kumar Danga and Dilip Kumar Danga, faced trial in S.T. No. 26 of 2000 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh, for committing the murder of one Bhikari Pradhan of village-Surundi and causing grievous hurt to his nephew-Satyaban Pradhan, son-Subash Pradhan and brother-Abdhuta Pradhan. By judgment dated 08.04.2002, the trial Court convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. However, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Be it noted that the appeal in respect of appellant No.2-Dilip Kumar Danga has abated in view of his death. Accordingly, the present appeal is confined to appellant No.1-Pradeep Kumar Danga. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. On 26.08.1999 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased, Bhikari Pradhan, after asking his wife, P.W.3, to make preparations for the worship of cattle on the occasion of Rakhi Purnima, went towards the village road (danda). Shortly thereafter, she heard hullah coming from the direction of the danda and came out of the house. She saw appellant Pradeep assaulting her husband on the head with a Tangia. As a result, the deceased fell down. She also saw that appellant Dilip, dealt a blow with a Kati on the head of her husband thereafter. Hearing the hullah of P.W.3, Satyaban (P.W.-1), Subash (P.W.-2) and Abdhuta (P.W.-4) and other villagers came to the spot. It is stated that the appellants thereafter chased P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and assaulted them. Appellant Pradeep dealt Tangia blows on P.Ws.1 and 4, while appellant Dilip dealt a Kati blow on the hand of P.W.2. On intervention of other persons present at the spot, the appellants left the place. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 lifted the deceased and brought him near his house, where he was made to lie on a cot. The deceased was subsequently taken to Harabhanga Hospital, where the Medical Officer declared him dead. P.W.3 then proceeded to Harabhanga Police Station and lodged FIR. On the basis of the FIR, Harabhanga P.S. Case No.36 of 1999 was registered under Section 302/326/325/324/323/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them under Section 302/34 and 326/34 IPC. 3. The defence of the accused persons was one of complete denial and false implication. It was claimed that on the date of occurrence, the wife and sister of appellant Pradeep while returning home after attending call of nature were subjected to comments passed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. On being informed, the appellants and their father went to the spot and protested, whereupon P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 armed with Tangia, Katari and other weapons, attempted to assault them. In the occurrence, the deceased intervened and sustained injuries inflicted by the weapons carried by P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. It is relevant to note that a counter-case, being Harabhanga P.S. Case No.37 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No.367 of 1999 was registered on the same day at the instance of the father of the appellants alleging assault by P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, which was subsequently committed to the Court of Session and tried as S.T. No.15 of 2001. The defence relies upon the case, counter-case and the injuries sustained by the appellants to contend that the prosecution has suppressed the true genesis and sequence of the occurrence. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited fifteen documents. That apart, prosecution also proved two material objects. Defence, on the other hand, did not adduce any evidence. Page 5 of 17 5. After analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the prosecution had established the involvement of the appellants in causing the death of the deceased. It, however, found the prosecution version regarding the genesis of the occurrence i.e. the dispute over the pathway, to be untrue and held that the occurrence had probably originated because of comments passed by P.Ws.1, 2 and others towards the female members of the appellants’ family. It rejected the defence plea that the deceased had sustained the fatal injuries from the weapons of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and relying principally on the evidence of P.W.3, corroborated by the medical and other evidence and held that the charge under Section 302/34 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, finding the evidence relating to the subsequent assault on P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the injuries sustained by them as uncertain, it extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitted them of the charge under Section 326/34 IPC. Accordingly, it convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated hereinbefore. Page 6 of 17 6. Heard Mr. S.N. Mishra (4), learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 7. Mr. Mishra assails the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds:- i) The evidence of P.W.3, the principal eyewitness, is inconsistent and does not establish her presence at the time of assault. ii) The ocular account is not in conformity with the medical evidence. iii) P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 being related and interested witnesses, being accused persons in the counter-case, their evidence has no bearing on the case. iv) The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants. v) Recovery of the weapons does not connect them with the offence. vi) Material independent witnesses were not examined. Page 7 of 17 vii) The prosecution has failed to establish the true genesis and sequence of the occurrence. 8. Per contra, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi would argue that the prosecution has established the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. According to her, the evidence of P.W.3, clearly establishes the assault and her testimony finds corroboration from the medical evidence and other circumstances. She submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased or were accused in the counter- case, particularly when their presence at the spot and the assault on the deceased are otherwise established. She also submits that the existence of the counter-case or the injuries sustained by the appellant does not, by itself, discredit the prosecution case, particularly when the defence failed to adduce any evidence in support of its version. She also contends that non-recovery or failure to scientifically connect the weapons with the offence is not fatal when the ocular evidence otherwise establishes the appellant's involvement. Page 8 of 17 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. 10. At the outset, there is no dispute about the homicidal nature of the death. P.W.7, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found an incised wound extending from the right side of the nose obliquely to the middle of the head with fracture of the right parietal bone and laceration of the brain substance. He opined that death was due to haemorrhage from the injury and was homicidal in nature. 11. Before we proceed to independently examine the evidence, it would be apposite to refer to the settled principle that a conviction can be founded on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness if such evidence is found to be wholly reliable and inspires confidence. There is no rule of law requiring corroboration in every case. However, where the testimony of the sole eyewitness is subjected to challenge, the Court must scrutinize it with greater care and examine whether it is cogent, consistent and receives support from the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. Reference may be had in this regard to the case of Panchu @ Panchunath Pradhan and others vs. State of Orissa1, Ramji Surjya Padvi v. State of Maharashtra2 and Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3 wherein it has also been held that the quality of evidence and not its quantity, is the determinative factor. The Court must, therefore, examine whether the testimony bears a ring of truth, is consistent with the earlier version of the witness and the evidence of other witnesses, while distinguishing between minor discrepancies which do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case and material inconsistencies which create a reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the accused. 12. In the present case, the prosecution mainly relies on P.W.3, Ahalya Pradhan, wife of the deceased and the informant. In examination-in-chief, she stated that on hearing hullah she came to the spot and saw the appellant giving a Tangia blow on the head of the deceased followed by 1 CRA No.90 of 2001 (Orissa High Court) 2 (1983) 3 SCC 629 3 (2020) 19 SCC 165 a Kati blow by Dilip. However, in cross-examination, she stated that her daughter called her saying that the deceased had fallen down and by the time she reached the spot her husband was already lying on the ground. She further stated that she did not speak to him and could not say who was present there. This discrepancy is not minor in nature as it relates to her presence at the time of the assault and thereby, the likelihood of her witnessing the occurrence. Nevertheless, before drawing any conclusion, it is necessary to examine whether the evidence of the other eyewitnesses corroborates her version. 13. P.W.2 stated that when he reached the spot, his father was already lying unconscious, while P.W.4 stated that on reaching the spot he found the deceased lying on the ground. Their evidence, therefore, does not provide consistent corroboration of the initial assault. Their evidence regarding the subsequent assaults upon them is also not stated before the I.O, P.W.8, who stated that such facts had not been stated by them before him. Further, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 were accused in the counter-case. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 also do not dispel the doubt. Page 11 of 17 Though their relationship with the deceased or their involvement in the counter-case does not by itself render their evidence unreliable, these circumstances require their testimony to be examined with greater caution. 14. Coming to the medical evidence, P.W.7 stated that the fatal head injury could not have been caused by a Tangia, though it was possible by a Kati. This is material as the prosecution attributes the first blow with a Tangia to Pradeep and the subsequent blow with a Kati to Dilip. Though minor medical-ocular discrepancy may not discredit otherwise reliable evidence, the opinion directly affects the specific role attributed to the appellant. The recovery of the weapons also does not help the prosecution as P.W.6 did not identify them and no nexus was established between the seized Tangia and the fatal injury. 15. It has also been argued by Mr. Mishra that prosecution failed to establish the true genesis and sequence of the occurrence. The FIR attributes the occurrence to the dispute regarding the pathway to the deceased’s house. However, the trial Court disbelieved this version and held that the occurrence had probably originated from comments passed by P.Ws.1, 2 and others towards the female members of the appellants’ family. This finding, in our considered view, cannot be overlooked. Where the genesis pleaded by the prosecution is found to be untrue, the prosecution evidence requires closer scrutiny, particularly when an alternative theory emerges from the record. 16. P.W.6 stated that although there had earlier been a dispute regarding the pathway between the deceased and the father of the accused, the dispute had been compromised before the occurrence and there had been no quarrel thereafter. Also, this has been stated by the deceased wife, P.W.3 herself. 17. The defence case, on the other hand, was that the occurrence originated from comments passed by P.Ws.1, 2 and others towards the female members of the appellants' family. Though the accused did not adduce evidence in support of the defence version, they were not required to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. They could rely upon circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence to show that the it had failed to prove its version beyond reasonable doubt. More so, when the trial Court itself found this genesis to be probable. 18. The existence of the counter-case also assumes importance in this regard. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 were accused in the counter-case arising out of the same occurrence. P.W.8, the IO, stated in cross-examination that he had noticed injuries on the person of the accused though he had not noted the same. The record also contains an official communication of the Medical Officer, Harabhanga, addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police regarding the injuries sustained by the appellants, wherein the injuries were opined to have been caused by a pointed weapon and an axe. 19. Thus, the fact that the appellants had sustained injuries is not only a defence but it finds support from the prosecution case itself. The trial Court, however, does not appear to have given due consideration to this material circumstance. It is true that failure to explain injuries on the accused is not fatal to the prosecution case. Its significance depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case, however, the injuries assume importance in view of the counter-case, the involvement of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 therein, the rejection of the prosecution's version regarding the genesis of the occurrence and the uncertainty surrounding the sequence of events. The prosecution was, therefore, required to explain the circumstances in which the appellants sustained injuries, particularly when the defence specifically stated that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 had assaulted them and the deceased intervened during the confrontation. The failure to explain those injuries, in the peculiar facts of the present case, lends support to the possibility that the prosecution has not disclosed the complete and true sequence of the occurrence. 20. We may also note that the trial Court itself found the evidence regarding the subsequent assault on P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 uncertain to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charge under Section 326/34 IPC. While such acquittal does not by itself have any bearing on the present charge, it is relevant in assessing the reliability of the witnesses and the sequence of occurrence. The prosecution cannot derive support from a part of their testimony when another material part of their account was itself found unreliable by the trial Court. Reference in this regard may be had to the case of Mehatar v. State of Maharashtra4, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows: “22. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in resting the conviction of the appellants herein solely on the basis of the evidence of Sindhubai (PW-1) when her testimony was found to be largely unreliable. For doing so, the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration. 23.In our considered view, there is no corroboration to the testimony of Sindhubai (PW-1). As such, the conviction would not be sustainable. The appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt.” 23. Thus, from an overall appreciation of the evidence and the circumstances, we find that the prosecution has established the homicidal death of the deceased but the evidence regarding the participation of the appellant in causing the injury is not free from doubt. The testimony of P.W.3 regarding her presence at the time of assault is doubtful; P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 do not furnish consistent 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 319 corroboration of the initial assault; the medical evidence does not support the Tangia blow attributed to the appellant; and the prosecution's version regarding the genesis of the occurrence has been disbelieved by the trial Court itself. The injuries sustained by the appellants, noticed during investigation and supported by the medical material on record have also remained unexplained. 24. Thus, on a conspectus analysis of evidence and the discussion made above, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the participation of appellant, Pradeep Kumar Danga in causing the fatal injury to the deceased or that he shared common intention with the co-accused to cause his death. The effect of the doubtful ocular evidence, the medical inconsistency regarding the weapon attributed to the appellant, the disbelieved genesis of the occurrence, the unexplained injuries on the appellants and the circumstances arising from the counter-case creates reasonable doubts which must enure to the benefit of the appellant. Page 17 of 17 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No. 26 of 2000 is hereby set aside. The appellant being on bail be discharged from his bail bonds. 26. Before parting we would like to place on record our appreciation for Mr. S.N Mishra (4) for his able assistance to the Court as Amicus Curiae. We assess his professional fee at Rs 15,000.00 to be paid by the Odisha State Legal Services Authority. .......................................... (Sashikanta Mishra, J) Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree. …........................................ (Manash Ranjan Pathak, J) Ashok Kumar Behera