Pratap Ch. Padhy vs State Of Odisha

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

This is a petition by the Appellant- petitioner received from the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Berhampur (Welfare Services, Male Section) for

regular bail. The Appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur by the judgment dated 1st December, 2018 in Sessions

Trial No.57 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in

default to undergo RI for a further one year.

At the outset, it is clarified that the details of the case discussed hereafter by this Court is only for the purpose of considering the Appellant’s

case for bail. It is not to be construed as the final view of this Court on merits. The case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and

in particular the evidence of one Lili Sahu (PW-17) to whom the Appellant is said to have made an extra judicial confession, after the crime had taken

place, that he had himself killed the deceased. The Appellant purportedly gave her a gold chain and asked her not to disclose that fact to anyone.

The above statement appears to the Court to be improbable when the evidence of PW-17 is viewed as a whole. Elsewhere in her deposition she

stated that when she visited the house of the Appellant and enquired if his wife i.e. the deceased was in the house, the Appellant replied in the

negative. When PW-17 was leaving the house, she is supposed to have heard shouts and when she again asked if the deceased is in the house, the

Appellant purportedly told her not to ask anything about his family affairs. In this background it seems unlikely that the Appellant would thereafter

have voluntarily gone to PW-217 to make the extra judicial confession and entrusted a gold chain to her.

It further appears from para 7 of the deposition of PW-17 that she admitted to having been told by the police what and how to depose. For some

reason, the Prosecutor did not get this statement clarified by PW-17 by seek her re-examination with the permission of the trial Court. As a result,

there are doubts as regards the reliability of the evidence of PW-17.

The Appellant has been in custody since 7th November, 2014. It appears unlikely that this appeal can be taken up for hearing at an early date.

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court directs that the Appellant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this appeal subject to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court.

It is again clarified that the observations in this order will on the merits of the case is only for the purposes of bail and will not affect the final

decision in the appeal.

The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order

available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide

Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

…………………………………..