STATE OF ORISSA versus SIKHAR JENA AND ORS

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 01-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S:C.R. 844 
'A 
ST ATE OF ORI SSA 
.,._ 
~ 
v. 
SIKHAR JENA AND ORS: 
(Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2002) 
B 
DECEMBER 1, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
'r' 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r.w. s.149 - Attack by mob - · 
c Death of 5 persons - Conviction of six accused, based on 
evidence of eye-witness - High Court ordered acquittal, by 
discarding evidence of eye-witness - Propriety of..:. Held: Not 
proper - High Court by abrupt conclusions discarded the 
evidence of eye-witness - Merely stating that the evidence of 
D a witness was not believable was not sufficient - Matter 
remitted to High Court. 
l 
Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, there 
was clash between the rival groups. Havaldar (PW-2) 
E informed at the· police station that the accused persons 
and their supporters were armed with weapons like lathis, 
..,. 
bombs, farsas etc. The Officer-in-charge along with PW-
2, other police personnel as well as personnel of APR 
Force proceeded towards the spot to tackle the situation. 
F After reaching the place of occurrence, mob became ... 
furious and started brick batting the police party. Officer-. 
• 
in-charge ordered for firing and· himself fired from his 
.)..-
·. 
revolver in self defence. The mob attacked the .Officer-in-
charge and the police personnel and snatched away the · 
G revolver .and rifles from them. Four police officers and a. 
leader of opposite group_.s~ccumbed to the injuries at the 
.... 
spot. Originally 114 accused persons were prosecuted . 
and faced trial under twenty nine heads of charges. Out 
f. 
of the 114 accused persons, a few expired during the trial.· 
H 
844 
~..,. 
STATE OF ORISSA v. SIKHAR JENA AND ORS. 
845 
Ultimately, apart from the six respondents, all other 
A 
accused persons were acquitted. The conviction of six 
respondents was based on evidence of PW-2 and 8. The 
High Court allowed the appeal discarding the evidence 
of PW-2. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: The High Court discussed ·in major parts of 
its judgment the factual scenario as projected by the 
parties. Thereafter by abrupt conclusions PW-2's 
evidence was discarded. This certainly was not the 
C 
proper way of disposing of an appeal involving 
accusations relating to death of five persons. On that 
limited ground, the. impugned judgment is set aside and 
High Court is directed -to re-consider the matter afresh 
dealing with various points highlighted by the 
D 
prosecution and responses of the accused persons. If 
the High Court intends to differ from the conclusions of 
the trial Court it has to indicate reasons therefor. Merely 
stating that the evidence of a witness is not believable 
would not suffice. [Para 5] [849-G-H; 850-A-B] 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 564 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment dated 31.8.1999 of the High Court 
· of Orissa at Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No. 190 of 1988. 
Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant. 
Abhijit Sengupta for the Respondents~ 
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 the Orissa High Court 
directing acquittal of the respondents. 
F 
. G 
H 
, 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Background facts, as projected by prosecution, in a 
nutshell, are as follows: 
The occurrence took place on 19.3.1984 between 9.30 
AM and 10.00 AM. The FIR was drawn up by the Circle 
B Inspector of Polic~. Paradeep, purportedly on his own 
information on 19.3:1984 at 11 .15 AM. and was formally 
registered at the Paradeep Police· station at 12.15 P.M. on 
19.3.1984. The informant (The Circle lnspector)who has been 
l'" 
examined as P.W. 49 is admittedly not a witness to the 
c occurrence, but it is evident from the F.l.R. as well as his 
statement and statements of other witnesses that the F.l.R. was 
drawn-up on the basis of narration given by some of the police 
officials and others. In the FIR itself, it was mentioned that the 
.. 
informant had enquired into whole episode from the police 
D personnel and outsiders. Prior to 19.3.1984 there was some 
internal dispute between the groups of labourers working in the 
Paradeep Port area. It is further revealed that since tension was 
prevailing a section of the Orissa State Armed Police (OSAP) 
had been deployed since 14.3.1984·near Atharbank, popularly 
E known as "Iron ore plot" to·maintain law and order. In the F.L'R. 
it was mentioned that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.