IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: AT CUTTACK JCRLA No. 74 of 2007 From judgment dated 21.07.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2007 of learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. Kanduria Juanga ...… Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ..…. Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Appellant : M/s. Chitta Ranjan Sahu & Mr. S.R. Sahoo, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, [Addl. Government Advocate] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 02.07.2026 Date of Judgment: 23.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________ SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 21.07.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2007 whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows:- The accused had married the deceased (Tikili Jangua) about 20 years prior to the occurrence, which took place on 24.l0.2006. They had two children. The accused was in the habit of assaulting his wife frequently being intoxicated. On 24.06.2006 at about 10.00 A.M., two persons, namely, Rasa Juanga and Nakfodi Juanga of Sahartangiri informed Saranga Juanga, the brother of the deceased that on the previous day at about 4.00 P.M., the accused had killed his sister (deceased) by severely assaulting her. On hearing this, Saranga, along with his family members, rushed to Sahartangiri and found his sister lying dead inside the house with marks of injury on her dead body. The elder son of the accused, namely, Bhagaban Juanga, informed Saranga that his father had killed his mother (deceased) by assaulting her and by placing her dead body inside the house. Saranga further learnt from the villagers that while the deceased and accused were harvesting paddy on the threshing floor, the accused quarreled with the deceased and killed her by assaulting her. Saranga thereafter proceeded to Pandapada Police station and orally reported the matter, which was reduced into writing. On such report, Pandapada P.S. Case No. 63 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 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, prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited fifteen documents. Besides, one material object was proved. The defence did not adduce any evidence. 5. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Then, relying upon the version of the child witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3, it held that the prosecution case was fully established to the effect that the accused had killed the deceased by assaulting her with a bahungi. The trial Court also accepted the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 relating to extra- judicial confession made by the accused, after the occurrence. Basically, on such finding, the trial Court found prosecution case proved and therefore, convicted the accused and sentenced him as already stated hereinbefore. 6. Heard Mr. Chitta Ranjan Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 7. Mr. Sahu would argue that the trial Court committed an error in relying upon the version of the child witness (P.W.2), who was not examined by police during investigation and deposed for the first time in the Court. He further submits that the evidence relating to the so-called extra-judicial confession is neither credible nor believable. Alternatively, Mr. Sahu argued that there being no evidence of pre-mediation, prior planning or motive to commit the offence, the conviction for murder cannot be sustained. At best, it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Page 5 of 8 8. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty would argue that only because the child witness was not examined by police cannot nullify his evidence, if it is otherwise found to be truthful and corroborated by other witnesses. In any case, the version of P.W.3 is clear, consistent and without any contradiction, which the trial Court has rightly relied upon. Mr. Mohanty further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 relating to extra- judicial confession. 9. We have analyzed the evidence on record independently, keeping in mind the contentions raised by the parties before us. First of all, the nature of death being homicidal has not been contested. Even otherwise, the same is proved by the version of the autopsy surgeon, P.W.10. 10. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the version of P.Ws.2 and 3, both of whom are child witnesses. Both of them clearly stated to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased with a Bahungi and that they were present nearby and were watching goats. Both of them stated that the blow struck on the ear of the deceased. Page 6 of 8 Insofar as P.W. 2 is concerned, he was not examined by police, but then we do not think it is a strong material discrepancy so as to discard his evidence, particularly when the same finds full corroboration from P.W. 3, another child witness who was present with him at the spot and was duly examined by police. This could be a lapse in investigation but the same cannot, in our view nullify his evidence. Even otherwise, if we discard the evidence of P.W. 2, there is clear, cogent, and consistent view of P.W.3. We do not find much merit in the version of P.W.s. 4 and 5 relating to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, for the reason that they had stated so for the first time before the Court. Considering the evidence as a whole, we find nothing wrong in the finding of guilt rendered by the trial Court. 11. Having held as above, we are persuaded to consider the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellant that even if the prosecution case is proved, it would not be a case of murder but culpable homicide not amounting to the murder. If we accept the evidence as laid, one thing that comes out clearly is that both the accused as well as the deceased were harvesting paddy in the threshing floor. There is no evidence whatsoever of any pre- meditation, no motive has been suggested, only one blow appears to have been struck, which being on the vital part of the body, caused an injury sufficient to result in death. From all these facts, it can be reasonably inferred that a sudden quarrel most likely erupted between the accused and the deceased, in course of which the accused, being besieged by anger struck a blow on his wife. From the evidence placed by the parties before us. By no stretch of imagination, it can be treated as a deliberate act committed with the sole objective to kill the deceased. On the contrary, we are more inclined to hold that it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The accused must be held to have the knowledge that the blow inflicted by him, is likely to cause death, or such injury as would result in death. As such, it would be a case punishable under Section 304 Part -II of IPC. We are unable to concur with the order of conviction under Section 302 of IPC passed by the trial Court for the above reason. In fact, the trial Court has not considered this aspect at all. Page 8 of 8 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgement is modified to the extent of convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. We find from the records that the appellant was in custody for more than 12 years one month before being released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.11.2018. 13. We are, therefore, of the view that ends of justice would be best served by sentencing the accused to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. His bail bond be discharged. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree. ………..………………….. Manash Ranjan Pathak, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 23rd July, 2026/ B.C. Tudu