CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 1 of 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 246 of 2003 and 265 of 2003 (From the judgment and order dated 12.09.2003 passed by learned Adhoc. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case Nos.48/6 of 2003) _______________________________________________________ CRLA No. 246 of 2003 Anil Barua … Appellant -versus- State of Odisha … Respondent CRLA No. 265 of 2003 Khetra Mohan Mohanty@ Mangu … Appellant -versus- State of Odisha … Respondent Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Appellants : Mr. H.K.Mund, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.S. Nayak, A.S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 2 of 18 Date of hearing- 19.03.2026 Date of Judgment-31.03.2026 Sashikanta Mishra,J. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and hence, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants faced trial along with one Rajib Kumar Mallick @ Piki in S.T. Case No. 48/6 of 2003 in the Court of learned Adhoc. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela for committing the murder of one Arjuna Mohananda. While Rajib Kumar Mallick was acquitted, the present appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: On 28.03.2002, one Narayan Naik was alone in his quarter in Sector-16 of Rourkela. One Dusmanta Sahoo, who happens to be his friend, came to his quarter and stayed for the night. The next day, that is, 29.03.2002 CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 was the day of Holi. Narayan went to play Holi with his friends while Dusmanta stayed back. Narayan returned with his friends at about 2 P.M. and thereafter went to take bath in the river. At about 3.30 P.M., Arjuna Mohananda (deceased) came on a scooter to the quarter. Both he and Dusmanta played cards. After some time, Narayan returned and went to the house of his maternal uncle to bring curry. Subsequently Pintu, Raju, accused Anil Barua, accused Khetramohan @ Mangu and another unknown boy came to the quarter. Mangu took the scooter key from the deceased with the intent of going somewhere. Narayan arrived with the curry thereafter and talked with those persons outside the quarter. Then he went on the scooter of Arjuna Mohananda with accused Anil. When Dusmanta went to take bath in the bathroom, he heard a gunshot and came running outside. He found deceased Arjun Mohananda lying on the cot with severe bleeding. Mangu, Pintu and another boy rushed inside the room. While Pintu was holding a revolver, Mangu CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 4 of 18 was holding a Bhujali. Pintu fired a shot aiming at Arjuna while Mangu repeatedly assaulted him by means of the Bhujali. Anil was keeping guard at the rear side of the door and Raju was at the front side. The unknown boy shouted on seeing the informant ‘Dhara Mara’. The informant, in order to save his life ran away and returned after some time. Narayan also returned and the informant narrated the incident to him, whereupon Narayan closed the doors and windows. Thereafter, both went to the police station and on the way, they informed about the incident to the elder brother of Mahesh Nag and Raju Paul. Dusmanta reported the matter orally at the Police Station, whereupon police registered P.S. Case No. 35 of 2002 and took up investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellants, Rajib Kumar Mallick, Pintu @ Aswini Kumar and Raju Toppo. It is to be noted that Pintu @ Aswini Kumar and Raju Toppo are absconders. Page 5 of 18 CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 4. The plea of the accused persons was of denial and false implication. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and proved 12 documents. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any evidence, either oral or documentary. 6. The trial Court, after scanning the evidence on record, found no evidence against accused Rajib Kumar Mallick and therefore acquitted him. Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, the trial Court heavily relied upon the eyewitness account of the informant (P.W.6) read with the medical evidence as also the evidence relating to disclosure of the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Mangu. As such, the trial Court was of the view that prosecution was successful in establishing the case against the present appellants and convicted and sentenced them as already stated hereinbefore. 7. Heard Mr. H.K.Mund, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned AGA for the State. CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 6 of 18 8. Mr. Mund would argue that insofar as accused Anil Barua is concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever of his involvement in the alleged occurrence. No overt act was attributed to him by any of the witnesses, including the informant (P.W.6), who, according to the prosecution, was an eyewitness. Therefore, according to Mr. Mund, the conviction of Anil is entirely bad in law. As regards the other appellant, Mr. Mund would argue that the evidence of P.W.6 ought not have been so heavily relied upon by the trial Court particularly having regard to the contradictions present in his testimony. Though in his testimony he stated that the accused Mangu had repeatedly dealt blows with Bhujali on the body of the deceased, yet the I.O. admitted he had not stated before him that Mangu had assaulted the deceased in his belly. As regards the so-called disclosure statement, Mr. Mund would argue that according to the witness P.W. 3, the time of disclosure and seizure of the weapon of offence was 10 A.M., whereas according to the I.O. (P.W.9), such CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 statement was recorded and seizure was made at 2.P.M. This, according to Mr. Mund, is a material discrepancy. Mr. Mund refers to the evidence of the autopsy surgeon ( P.W.-5) to submit that according to him, cause of death was due to injury to heart and brain. Though as many as 11 injuries were found on the body of the deceased, he does not specify the exact cause of death nor did he say that death was caused due to assault caused by Mangu. As such, Section 38 of IPC can be resorted to. Moreover, P.W.5 admitted that he had opined about the cause of death being caused by the Bhujali only because of bloodstains present on it which is speculative. Mr. Mund would further argue that prosecution has not been able to prove any motive on the part of the accused for committing the crime. There is no direct evidence. The evidence of P.W. 6 alone cannot be relied upon without sufficient corroboration. The so-called place of concealment of the weapon was also a riverbank accessible to all. Raising the above grounds, Mr. Mund CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 8 of 18 would argue that the conviction of the accused persons is entirely bad in law. 9. Per contra, Mr. P.S.Nayak learned State counsel would submit that admittedly, P.W. 6 is the only eyewitness. He fully corroborated the version stated by him in the FIR. There is no contradiction whatsoever to doubt his testimony. As regards evidence of leading to discovery, Mr. Nayak would submit that even accepting that there is some discrepancy as regards the time of seizure, the same is minor and cannot nullify the effect of the evidence relating to the statement of the accused leading to discovery and to the actual discovery. As regard the doctor’s version, Mr. Nayak would submit that he clearly mentioned the cause of death which was cumulative effect of all the injuries. It was moreover proved that except injury No. 3, all others could be caused by Bhujali. He also opined that similar injuries can be possible by Bhujali. The weapon of offence was produced CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 and examined by the doctor. All the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Even though it has not been stated by the doctor in so many words, the Court being the expert of experts can always arrive at its own conclusion. As regards accused Anil, Mr. Nayak would submit that there is clear evidence that Anil was guarding the rear door lest the informant may escape. As such, he is equally complicit in the crime and was rightly convicted taking the aid of Section 34 of IPC. 10. Before delving into the rival contentions raised before us, we find that out of 9 witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 turned hostile. P.W.6, the informant was projected as the only eye witness. Besides, prosecution also relied upon the evidence of the autopsy surgeon (P.W.5). P.W.3 though not fully supported the prosecution case, yet being witness to seizure is an important witness. Insofar as the law relating to use of solitary eyewitness is concerned, it is fairly well settled that the evidence of single witness can be relied upon, provided it is CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 10 of 18 credible and reliable. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. As is oft-stated, it is the quality and not quantity of evidence which is relevant to prove a fact. As already stated, the trial Court relied heavily on the eye-witness account of the informant (P.W.6), the version of the autopsy surgeon (P.W.5) and the evidence of P.W.3 who was witness to the seizure of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. Having observed as above, we shall now proceed to deal with the contentions raised before us. 11. We would first deal with the ground raised by Mr. Mund with regard to conviction of accused Anil Barua. According to Mr. Mund, nothing has been stated by any witness showing his participation in the alleged occurrence. We have seen the FIR wherein the informant (P.W.6) stated that at the time of occurrence, when he came out of the bathroom hearing the gunshot and saw accused Mangu assaulting the deceased by means of CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Bhujali, he tried to run away and found Anil Barua guarding the rear door. In his evidence, he also stated the same thing but then he also admitted that just prior to the occurrence accused Anil had left with Narayan (P.W.1) in the scooter of the deceased. There is therefore, some doubt as to if he was actually present at the time of occurrence, because it is not borne out from the evidence on record as to if he actually returned, and if so, at what time. That apart, except for a bald statement that he was standing near the rear door, no overt act is attributed to him. So, even if this piece of evidence is accepted, it only shows that he was present at the spot but in the absence of any evidence to show that he also shared the common intention with other accused persons to do away with the life of the deceased, merely because he was standing at the rear door of the house cannot make him complicit in the alleged occurrence. We, therefore, find considerable force in the argument of Mr. Mund that the conviction of accused Anil Barua cannot be sustained in the eye of law. CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 12 of 18 12. Coming to the other grounds raised by Mr. Mund, we may note at the outset that the deceased was subjected to 11 injuries out of which there was only one gunshot injury i.e., injury no. 3. All other injuries are consistent with the prosecution version that they were caused by Bhujali. Now, insofar the gunshot injury is concerned, the prosecution could not prove conclusively as to who had fired the gun. We therefore do not purpose to enter into the discussion in this regard. So far as the injuries found on the body of the deceased are concerned, we may profitably refer to the version of Autopsy Surgeon (P.W.-5) who, on examination, noted the following injuries: 1) Incised would 1 1/2x ½” x trachea deep middle of neck below thyroid. 2) Incised would over left side of neck above wound no.1 of size 3”x13/1” vessels clean cut. 3) One circular gunshot would 1/2 “ diameter at right parito occipital area 3’ above right side ear . 4) Hamatoma present in scalp lying skull bone fractured irregularity margin, probe entering medio ventrally piercing membrain and cavity with laceration and semi clots presents and proceeding to left zygoma where one bullet was found in cito after dessection. 5) Stab wound, left side chest just above nipple of size 1/2'x1/2” deep. Page 13 of 18 CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 6) Stab wound left side xiphis ½”x1/2”x1/3” 7) Stab wound above and medial to 4th wound above chest, third inter costal space of size 1”x1/2x heart deep 8) Left ventricle punctured. 9) Abdomen wall;- incised wound ½’x1/31/4” over left side abdomen, 7”away from the ambilicus. 10) Three incised wound above umbilicus left side abdomen of size 1”x1/2”x3/4” 11) Incised wound left illice fossa 2” above left urinal region of size 1/2" x 1/2" x1/3”. It is not disputed that injury No. 3 alone was caused by gunshot, all other injuries are attributed to Bhujali blows. According to Mr. Mund, the doctor has not specifically mentioned that the injuries were caused by Bhujali. He stated that cause of death was injury to the heart and brain due to the above noted wounds. This, according to us, is highly significant. The doctor having examined the internal organs along with external injuries gave such opinion. We do not find anything to disbelieve his expert evidence. In cross-examination, he stated that since there were bloodstains over the Bhujali produced so he opined that it was the weapon of offence used in inflicting the injuries. Mr. Mund argues that this cannot be treated as proof that CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 14 of 18 the same Bhujali which was seized and produced before the doctor was used for committing the crime. We do not agree because the doctor obviously had not seen the occurrence. A Bhujali was produced which he examined in light of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and since there were bloodstains, he said that such a weapon could have been used. He also stated that similar injuries could be possibly caused by Bhujali. This is highly significant. So, it cannot be said nor it is the case of defence that the injuries found on the deceased were caused because of some other reason or by some other weapon. We do not accept the argument of Mr. Mund on such score. 13. As regards the authorship of the crime, we found that beginning from the FIR and his evidence before the Court, the informant (P.W.6) has clearly and categorically stated that accused Mangu dealt several Bhujali blows on the body of the deceased causing bleeding injuries. We have already held that this statement is consistent with the CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 injuries actually found on his body at the time of postmortem examination. The only contradiction that is seen in the evidence of P.W.6 is that he had not specifically stated that accused Mangu had assaulted on the belly of the deceased. This, according to us, is of no consequence and does not nullify his positive evidence that accused Mangu had assaulted the deceased several times by means of Bhujali. 14. Coming to the next ground raised by Mr. Mund, we find that P.W.3 was the witness to the disclosure made by accused Mangu regarding the place of concealment of the Bhujali. The place is a bush near a river bank. Mr. Mund objects to the evidence on the ground that the place being accessible to all, cannot be believed to have been a place of concealment. We do not agree because the Bhujali was recovered not on the riverbank but from a bush near the riverbank. These are two different things. It is not the case of the defence that the place where the Bhujali was concealed under the bush was visible or accessible to all. CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 16 of 18 Secondly, Mr. Mund has pointed out the discrepancy in the time of seizure. According to P.W.3, the seizure was made at 10 A.M. while the time mentioned in the seizure list marked Exhibit 1 is 2.30 P.M. In view of the huge time gap, the evidence, according to Mr. Mund, ought to be discarded. It is true that according to P.W. 3, the seizure was made at 10 A.M. while as per the seizure list marked Exhibit 1, the time of seizure was 2.30 P.M. This aspect appears to have been raised also before the trial Court. The trial Court did not place much importance on this discrepancy and treated it as minor in nature. The trial Court held that since the witness was deposing after a year of the seizure, it is possible that he may have forgotten the time or may have stated so unmindfully. We are inclined to agree with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. In any case, the mere discrepancy in time does not demolish the prosecution case regarding seizure of the concealed weapon of offence from the spot mentioned in the seizure list. Thus, this ground is not tenable. Page 17 of 18 CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 15. As regard motive, it is well settled that in case of direct evidence, motive is of little consequence. In any case, motive is a thing known only to the offender and prosecution cannot be expected to prove what was in the mind of the accused while committing the crime. The evidence of the solitary eyewitness being direct, clear, cogent, consistent and trustworthy, we see no reason to discard the same. According to us, the evidence of P.W.6 as corroborated by P.W.5 and P.W.3 fully proves the case against accused Mangu. We therefore, hold that he was rightly convicted. 16. Thus, from a conspectus analysis of facts, the evidence, contentions raised and the discussions made hereinbefore, we are not persuaded to find any fault with the order of conviction passed by the trial Court against accused Khetra Mohan Mohanty @ Mangu (Appellant in CRLA No. 265 of 2003). The appeal filed by him is therefore, dismissed. He being on bail shall be taken to CRLA. No. 246 of 2003 & 265 of 2003 Page 18 of 18 custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of the sentence. Bail bond of appellant Khetra Mohan Mohanty @ Mangu stands cancelled. 17. In so far as the accused Anil Barua (Appellant in CRLA No. 246 of 2003) is concerned, he is acquitted of the charges and he be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in custody in connection with any other case, if any. The appeal filed by him (CRA No. 246 of 2003) is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in so far as it relates to accused Anil Barua is set aside. Bail bond of appellant Anil Barua stands discharged. .......................................... Sashikanta Mishra, J. Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree. …........................................ (Manash Ranjan Pathak,J.) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Deepak