Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSAversusPRAMOD KR. KODAMSINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 521
- Decided
- 15 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court was not justified in discarding the trial court’s findings on the credibility of the dying declaration and eye‑witness evidence without specific reasons, and the conviction was therefore restored.
Summary
The State of Orissa prosecuted thirteen accused under IPC sections 302, 149, 148, 326 and Explosives Act section 9. The trial court convicted them, relying on a dying declaration of the deceased and the testimony of injured eye‑witnesses, as well as forensic evidence of bomb residues. The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the dying declaration was not voluntary and that the eye‑witness testimonies lacked credibility because they were similar and allegedly influenced by party faction, and acquitted the accused. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by discarding the trial court’s detailed findings on credibility without giving any specific reasons, and by not respecting the trial court’s analysis of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s judgment, confirming the conviction and ordering the respondents to surrender. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can overturn a trial court’s findings on the credibility of a dying declaration and eye‑witness testimony without providing specific reasons.
- Whether the dying declaration in this case was admissible and voluntary.
- Whether eye‑witness testimonies can be discarded on the ground of similarity and alleged party faction.
- Standard of appellate review of factual findings made by the trial court.
Legislation cited
- Explosives Act, 1884s. 9
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 326
Subjects
dying declarationeye‑witness testimonycredibility of evidenceappellate reviewconvictionacquittalIndian Penal CodeExplosives Actcriminal procedureevidentiary standards
Judgment
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 371
" ~.
STATE OF ORISSA
v.
PRAMOD KR. KODAMSINGH & ORS.
A
(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
., • with those conclusions. [Para 9] [373-F]
G
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.
STATE OF ORISSA v. PRAMOD KR. KODAMSINGH 373
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
)I 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
D
to be cogent and credible. After referring to the various aspects
. ,.. of the case, trial court 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 E
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 F
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 G
restored. The respondents to surrender to custody forthwith to
serve the remainder of sentence.
10. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dying declaration"Sign in to search