GOURAHARI MAHANTA@GOURA MAHANTA vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.71 of 2025

CNR No. ODHC010335462025

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
)
Procedure Code read with Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023

Gourahari Mahanta @ ……. Appellant
Goura Mahanta

-Versus-
State of Odisha ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Ms. Sasmita Nanda, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA


Date of Hearing: 14.10.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 31.10.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. The present jail criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua, Keonjhar, in S.T.
Case No.23 of 2021, arising out of G.R. Case No.78 of 2021,
corresponding to Champua P.S. Case No.32 dated 06.03.2021, whereby

the respondent-accused, Gourahari Mahanta @ Goura Mahanta, was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment
for six months. The learned trial Court, however, acquitted the
respondent of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC by holding that
the prosecution had established the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
2. Heard Ms. Sasmita Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.03.2021 at about 8.20
P.M., a quarrel took place between the respondent and the deceased,
Lipun Mahanta, near the bus stand square of village Kodagadia Laxmi
Sahi under Champua Police Station. During the course of the quarrel, the
respondent assaulted the deceased with a sharp-cutting weapon, causing
injuries to his body, as a result of which he fell down. The deceased was

Page 2 of 8

immediately shifted to the hospital at Champua in a pickup van, where
the attending doctor declared him dead. On the basis of the written report
lodged by Purna Chandra Mahanta, the father of the deceased, Champua
P.S. Case No.32 dated 06.03.2021 was registered under Section 302 of
the IPC and investigation was taken up.
Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the respondent under Section 302 of the IPC, and the case was
committed to the Court of Session for trial.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nineteen
witnesses and proved the relevant documentary evidence. P.W.3, the
informant and father of the deceased, P.W.4, the mother of the deceased,
and P.W.13, the wife of the deceased. P.W.5, Puspamanjari Mahanta,
was the material eyewitness to the occurrence. The medical officers were
P.W.12 and P.W.15. P.W.19 was the Investigating Officer. The accused
denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial
Court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and
that the evidence of P.W.5, the eyewitness, was reliable and trustworthy.

Page 3 of 8

The Court also took note of the recovery of the weapons pursuant to the
disclosure made by the respondent during investigation. However, on
consideration of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence,
particularly the evidence that a quarrel was in progress between the
respondent and the deceased immediately before the assault, the learned
trial Court concluded that the prosecution had not established the
requisite intention to bring the act within the ambit of murder under
Section 300 of the IPC, but the Court held that the offence fell under
Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and accordingly convicted the respondent
thereunder. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“A fight is a combat between two or more persons
whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to
enunciate any general rule as to what shall be
deemed, to be sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact
and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must
necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each
case. In the present case, there was no cogent
evidence adduced by prosecution to show that the
accused had premeditation to kill the deceased.
Rather the evidence of P.W.5 discloses that prior to
assault on deceased by the accused there was quarrel
in between them. There are also no circumstances
which suggest that the accused has taken any undue
advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner.
There is no evidence on record to establish the motive
of the accused to commit the alleged offence. The

Page 4 of 8

unfortunate alleged incident seems to have erupted at
the spur of the moment as there were heated
arguments exchanged between the deceased and
accused and the unfortunate incident took place in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without
any premeditation. The accused did not take undue
advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner and in
a fit of rage during the quarrel, the accused attacked
the deceased.

11. In view of the aforementioned discussions, after
applying the broad guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-mentioned cases
and having regard to the totality of the evidences on
record the conclusion is ineluctable that the attending
circumstances enwombing the alleged incident,
strongly dispels the possibility that the accused
harboured an intention to kill the deceased and the
evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of
bringing the case within the ambit of Section 300 of
I.P.C. and the offence committed by the accused is
covered by Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. Hence, it is
proved that the case U/s.304 Part-I of I.P.C is made
out against the accused in this case instead of
U/s.302, I.P.C. Hence, prosecution is able to prove
the case U/s.304 Part- I, of I.P.C. for causing death
of deceased Lipun Mahanta beyond all reasonable
doubt.

12. In the result, the accused Gourahari Mahanta @
Goura Mahanta is found guilty of the offences
punishable U/s 304 Part-I of I.P.C. and accordingly
he is convicted thereunder.”


Page 5 of 8

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
7. The matter has been considered in the context of the challenge to
the sentence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not
assailed the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section
304 Part-I of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is not
under challenge in the present proceedings, and the consideration is
confined to the question of sentence, particularly in view of the period of
incarceration already undergone by him.

8. It is evident from the materials placed on record that the
respondent was taken into custody on 07.03.2021 and that, as stated, he
has undergone a total period of imprisonment of four years and eleven
months. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court was rigorous
imprisonment for five years. Thus, the period of incarceration already
undergone by the respondent is substantially equivalent to the
substantive sentence imposed upon him.

Page 6 of 8


9. The occurrence took place in the course of a quarrel and that the
offence proved was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under
Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The respondent was about 73 years of age
at the time of the trial, and the learned trial Court recorded that he had no
criminal antecedent. The period of incarceration already undergone is
also a relevant consideration in determining whether any further
substantive imprisonment is necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
10. Having regard to the nature of the occurrence, the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court, the absence of any challenge to the
conviction, the age and antecedents of the respondent as noted in the
impugned judgment, and, more particularly, the fact that he has already
undergone imprisonment for four years and eleven months against the
substantive sentence of five years, this Court is of the considered view
that the ends of justice would be adequately served by modifying the
substantive sentence to the period already undergone.
11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, Gourahari Mahanta
@ Goura Mahanta, under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC is affirmed.

Page 7 of 8

However, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five
years imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua,
Keonjhar, in S.T. Case No.23 of 2021, vide judgment dated 26.03.2025,
is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the
appellant. The bail bond stands discharged. The appellant shall be
released from the jail custody forthwith in case he is not required in any
other case. The Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the
concerned Jail authority.
12. With the above observations and directions, the Jail Criminal
Appeal is partly allowed.

(S.S. Mishra)
Judge


The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
st
Dated the 31 October, 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 03-Nov-2026 12:54:24

Page 8 of 8