STATE OF ORISSA versus PRAMOD KR. KODAMSINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 371 
" 
~. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
A 
v. 
PRAMOD KR. KODAMSINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1271 of 2004) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ] 
_, 
:ii, 
Penal Code, 1860!€xplosives Act, 1884 - s. 302 rlw ss. 
149, 148 and 326/s.9 - Prosecution - Conviction by trial court c 
on the basis of dying declaration and evidence of injured eye-
witnesses - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held : High 
Court was wrong in discarding the conclusion of trial court 
without indicating· any reason - Conviction confirmed. 
Respondents-accused were prosecuted uls. 302 r/w D 
s. 149, 148 and 326 IPC and u/s. 9 of Explosives Act, 1884. 
Trial court convicted them for the offences charged, 
placing reliance on the dying declaration and on the 
ocular evidence of injured eye-witnesses. High Court 
passed order of acquittal. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 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 F 
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 G 
., • 
with those conclusions. [Para 9] [373-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1271 of 2004. 
371 
H 
• 
"·' . 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.02.2002 of the High 
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1991. 
Janaranjan Das, S. Mishra and P .P. Nayak for the 
Appellant. 
8 
Satish Vig (NP) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. 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 
C 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'). 
D 
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 
E and Section 9 of the Act. 
3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects is 
unnecessary. Primarily the 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 
F 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 
G 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 
H appeal has abated so far as he is concerned. 
)I 
. ,.. 
STATE OF ORISSA v. PRAMOD KR. KODAMSINGH 373 
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State 
A 
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 
B 
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 
C 
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 held the accus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.