REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2004
STATE OF ORISSA .. APPELLANT
vs.
PRAMOD KUMAR KODAM SINGH & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of Orissa
High Court allowing the appeal filed by the thirteen respondents who faced trial for
alleged commission of offence under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148 and 326
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC‘) and Section 9 of the Indian
Explosive Act, (for short `the Act’).
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty of offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. All the thirteen accused persons were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence relatable to Section 302. Separate sentence was
imposed for offences punishable under Sections 148, 326 IPC and Section 9 of the
Act.
3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary. Primarily the
1
prosecution version rested on dying declaration purported to have been made by the
deceased and the evidence of the injured witnesses, that is, PWs. 6,7,8,9,10 and 12.
The High Court found that the evidence relating to dying declaration (Ex.4) is not
acceptable as it cannot be said to be true and voluntary. So far as the evidence of the
eye witnesses is concerned, the High Court discarded the same on the ground that
they were similar in nature and it was to be discarded as there was party faction.
Accordingly, the High Court directed acquittal.
4. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the High Court directing
acquittal. During the pendency of the appeal respondent No.9 Kalpataru Paikray
has died and therefore the appeal has abated so far as he is concerned.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that without
indicating any deficiency in the evidence of the injured eye witnesses by merely
observing that their evidences appeared to be parrot like, the High Court was not
justified in discarding their evidences.
6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents when the matter is
called.
7. The trial Court by an elaborate judgment had considered the evidence
about the eye witnesses and held the accused persons guilty. The said Court noted
that remnants of the exploded bombs seized on the spot were sent for chemical
examination and the report indicated that the bombs contained postium chlorate and
sulphite. It also analysed the evidence of the injured eye witnesses, keeping in view
the fact that some of them were related to the deceased. The evidence was held to be
cogent and credible. After referring to the various aspects of the case, trial court
2
held the accused persons guilty.
8. The High court, as noted above, came to the conclusion that the evidence
of so called injured eye witnesses does not inspire confidence because they were
similar and there was party faction.
9. It was not open to the High Court to discard the evidence by observing in
very generized terms that the evidence lacks credibility and cogency. The trial Court
had analyzed the evidence of the injured eye witnesses in great detail and had come
to the conclusion about its acceptability. Without indicating any basis as to how the
conclusion of the trial Court, was in any manner, erroneous, the High Court should
not have interfered with those conclusions. That being so, we set aside the impugned
judgment. The judgment of the Trial Court stands restored. The respondents to
surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.
10. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
April 15, 2009.
3