IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No. 36 of 2007 (From judgment dated 31.10.2006, passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 26 of 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur) Kalia @ Rabi Naik ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Appellant : Mr. Malaya Kumar Swain, Advocate -Versus- For Respondent : Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, [Additional Government Advocate] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA Date of Hearing: 12.02.2026 Date of Judgment:30.06.2026 Sashikanta Mishra, J. The appellant faced trial in ST Case No.26 of 2005 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur for committing the murder of his wife. Having been convicted in the said trial under Section 302 vide judgment dated 31.10.2006 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, he has preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows:- The accused appellant Kalia @ Rabi Naik had married the deceased Gita Bhoi and out of such wedlock three children were born. However, the relationship between the husband and wife was not good as her husband frequently quarreled with her and assaulted her due to which, she came and resided with her parents. The accused pressurized his wife to return home but she did not agree. The accused also threatened to kill her. On 09.11.2004 at about 10:00 AM, Shantilata Rath, mother of the deceased had gone to the nearby fields to work at about 10:00 AM and her mother had gone to collect firewood. The two children had gone to school. The deceased and her youngest child were at home. At about 12:00 noon, the accused came home and forced the deceased to accompany him. When she refused he assaulted her. Hearing the shouts Shantilata rushed home from the field and found that the accused had dealt a blow on the back of the head of the deceased with a crowbar. The deceased was struggling for her life. Several persons of the locality namely Manasmita Dash and Gula Mandal came to the spot shortly. Seeing them, the accused ran away to the paddy fields. The villagers ran after him. As a result of the blow on her head, the deceased died. The crowbar lay near her dead body. Shantilata thereafter, went and submitted a report which was reduced to writing at Biridi outpost after making a station diary entry. The F.I.R was subsequently registered by the I.I.C of Jagatsinghpur Police Station as P.S. Case No.240 of 2004 under Section 302 of IPC followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The accused took the plea of denial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and proved nine documents marked Exhibits.1 to 9. Besides four material objections were proved. The defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. 5. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence found that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that it was proved that the accused was in the house of the informant, where he quarreled with his wife followed by assault on her head by means of a crowbar and left the spot running. These facts, according to the trial Court, having clearly come out from the evidence on record proved that the accused had intention of committing murder of his wife. As such, the accused was convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore. 6. Heard Mr. Malaya Kumar Swain, learned counsel for the Accused-Appellant and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent. 7. Mr. Swain assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- (i) There were no eye witnesses to the occurrence. Even though it was stated that the mother of the informant was present at home during the occurrence, she was not examined. (ii) There is material discrepancy with regard to lodging of FIR at the outpost and also regarding the identity of the scribe. (iii) There is discrepancy in the version of the witnesses regarding the wearing apparel of the accused. (iv) The crowbar was seized on the next day of the occurrence. Page 5 of 13 8. Per contra, Mr. Nayak would argue that it is the clear and consistent version of the material witnesses that the accused used to ill-treat his wife (deceased) due to which she left her matrimonial home and came to reside with her parents. On the date of occurrence also the accused had assaulted his wife. Though, there is no eye witness to the assault by the accused using a crowbar yet several witnesses stated to have seen him running away from the spot immediately after the occurrence and of the crowbar with blood stains lying near the dead body of the deceased. All these factors cumulatively prove the guilt of the accused. 9. Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions, we deem it proper to analyse the evidence on record independently. We find that out of twelve witnesses examined by prosecution, two namely, P.Ws. 7 and 8 turned hostile. P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 did not say anything material about the occurrence. This leaves us with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12. Of them, P.W.5 is the informant. She deposed about the marriage of her daughter with the accused and of the frequent quarrels between them. As regards the occurrence, it is her specific case that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which she tried to subside and asked the two of them to wait till her return from the work. Then she proceeded to the field at about 9:30 AM. 10. This part of her testimony is not available in the FIR. More importantly, it appears to be a clear improvement as evident from the cross-examination of the I.O. (P.W.12). He admitted that the informant had not stated before him about the quarrel. She further stated that she returned from the field and found her daughter lying dead with bleeding injury on her head at about 12:00 noon. Though, she stated that she returned upon getting information she did not name the source. She further stated that her brothers brought the accused, who was running away towards the land. She did not name her brothers. However, one of them being Chandramani Dash was examined as P.W.1. He stated that he and Kanhu (P.W.2) were talking on the village road and heard “Hulla” from the house of Gita and coming to the spot they found Gita (deceased) lying dead in the courtyard and blood was coming out from her head and mouth. P.W.1 further stated to have found the accused running away from the spot. Then he and Kanhu went to Biridi outpost and gave information regarding the death of Gita. P.W.2 corroborates P.W.1 in material particulars. P.W.6, who is also one of the brothers of the informant stated the same thing. This, more or less is the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. Having noted the evidence on record as above, we shall now proceed to consider the probative value of the same in light of the objections raised by the defence. 12. It is argued that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and that the mother of the informant, though present at home and a likely eye witness, was not examined. It is not necessary that the case can only be proved by the evidence of direct eye witness alone; circumstantial evidence, particularly relating to surrounding, facts, conduct etc. can also have material bearing. The I.O. (P.W.12) has given a plausible explanation in his cross-examination for not examining the mother of the informant to the effect that she was extremely old. We therefore, find no infirmity in this regard so as to view the prosecution case with suspicion. 13. As regards the so called discrepancy in the evidence relating to lodging of FIR, we find that according to the informant (P.W.5), she lodged a report at Biridi outpost. The FIR (Exhibit-5) also mentions that the same was lodged at Biridi outpost. The discrepancy pointed out by the defence is to the effect that according to P.W.5 the FIR was written as per her instruction by one Karunakar. Said Karunakar was not examined. Secondly according to the I.O. (P.W.12), the oral report of the informant was reduced to writing by the woman S.I. (N. Mallick) of Jagatsinghpur Police Station. 14. Perusal of the FIR (Ext.5) reveals that a person named Karunakar Bhoi had signed as a witness along with one Narayan Bhoi on the body of the FIR. It can therefore, be reasonably inferred that P.W.5, deposing nearly two years after the occurrence, might have been confused as regards the identity of the scribe and one of the witnesses. We do not consider it an infirmity strong enough to demolish the prosecution case. 15. It is argued that P.W.2 stated that the accused was wearing a lungi whereas the seizure list relates to seizure of a full pant and full shirt. Assuming that the above is a discrepancy the same, per se, would not nullify the other evidence on record. We therefore, do not accept the defence’s argument, particularly when it has not been suggested to the I.O. that he had planted a different wearing apparel purporting to be that of the accused subsequently. 16. Defence has objected to the seizure of the crowbar as being delayed. We find that according to the I.O. after making station diary entry and being directed by the IIC he proceeded to the spot, where he examined the witnesses, prepared the spot map, held inquest and sent the dead body for autopsy. He also seized blood stains and sample earth and a crowbar lying at the spot. He prepared the seizure list marked Exhibit-4/2. The time of seizure is mentioned as 4:00 PM. To further satisfy ourselves we took a look at the case diary and found that the crowbar was seized at 4:00 PM. Thus, there is no discrepancy. 17. Having addressed the defence objections as above, we shall now proceed to consider as to if the evidence as led proves the prosecution allegation. In this context, the most important circumstances that have come out from the evidence unchallenged are as follows:- i. There was frequent quarrel between the accused and his wife (deceased) for which she was residing with her parents. Page 10 of 13 ii. The deceased was seen lying dead at the spot. iii. The accused was seen running away from the spot where the deceased was lying dead with blood coming out from her head and mouth. iv. A crowbar containing blood-stains was found lying near the dead body. v. The accused was apprehended by the villagers shortly after the occurrence. vi. The deceased had several injuries on the back of her skull and the cause of death was due to such injuries. 18. Thus, leaving aside the minor discrepancies we find the above circumstances forming a complete chain pointing unequivocally at the guilt of the accused. It is well settled that the evidence relating to previous or subsequent conduct is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chetan V. State of Karnataka,1wherein it was held as follows:- “It is trite that mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involved as an instinct of self-preservation. But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657 mind. The needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the Act.” 19. As already stated, there is un-challenged evidence of frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. In view of the conduct of the accused, who was none other than the husband of the deceased, of running away from the spot where the deceased was lying dead, which has gone unexplained, is a very strong circumstance that goes against him. 20. Now the question to be decided is, even after holding that the accused had caused the death of the deceased, will it amount to murder. As already stated, there is evidence of frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Their marriage was a love marriage and three children were born out of it. Their marriage had taken place more than seven years prior to the occurrence. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was any premeditation on the part of the accused. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had deliberately planned to kill his wife. On the other hand, even accounting for the weapon of offence used, the sight of injuries and the nature of injuries, it can be reasonably held that the assault arose in course of a quarrel and that in all human probability the accused was robbed of his powers of reason at that moment. It was therefore, an act committed in the heat of the moment and not a result of prior planning and preparation. We are therefore, of the considered view, that it would not be a case of murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Further, the fatal blow having been given on the back of the skull, which is a vital part of the body and with a crowbar, it can be said that the accused must be held to have had both the intention as well as the knowledge to either cause death or such bodily injury as would result in death by inflicting the blow. The accused must therefore, be held guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part 1 of IPC. 21. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order of conviction is modified from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC. As regards the sentence, taking into consideration all relevant factors including the fact that the occurrence took place nearly twenty-two years ago, we are of the view that ends of justice would be best served by sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Needless to mention, the period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off in accordance with law. He being on bail be taken to custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of his sentence. ………………………………... (Sashikanta Mishra, J) Manash Ranjan Pathak, J I agree. …........................................ (Manash Ranjan Pathak, J) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The 30th June, 2026/ Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 01-Jul-2026 11:15:12