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

J U D G M E N T

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