NIRAJ PANIGARAHI vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

( 2026:JHHC:26725-DB )



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.66 of 2020
----
Niraj Panigarahi, son of Late Janardan Panigarahi,
resident of village Babhantoli, Koyaldeepa, P.O.
and P.S. Basia, District Gumla. ----- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ----- Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P
-------
JUDGMENT
Dated: 29.08.2026
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for
the appellant and learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2019 (sentence passed on
31.08.2019) passed by Sri Lolark Dubey, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I Cum Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. Case No.
303/2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 376(2)/201 IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for
the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, rigorous
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence under Section 376(2) IPC and in default in payment of fine
to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year, rigorous
imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for
the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default in payment of fine
to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of
Biraj Devi in which it has been stated that she works as a maid
servant in the hotel of Jidan Guria and the same is her source of
livelihood. The informant had two daughters and while one of them
had died due to illness, the other daughter aged six years used to
stay with her. It has been alleged that on 26.04.2013 the informant
was working in the hotel and after completing her work, she
searched for her daughter, but she could not be found. In the next
morning, the informant had given a missing report to Kamdara P.S.
after which the police also started conducting a search. The
husband of the informant, on coming to know about the incident,
also came back home. In course of search the daughter of Suku
Munda had disclosed that she had seen the accused Niraj
Panigarahi who was working as a cook in the hotel of Jidan Guria
taking away the daughter of the informant. On this information, the
informant and others had made enquiry in the house of Niraj
Panigarahi but no trace could be found of the missing daughter of
the informant. It has been alleged that on 28.04.2013 an
information was received that the dead body of a child is lying in a
hillock behind the school and when the informant went to the said
place, she identified the dead body to be that of her missing
daughter. It was suspected that the murder was committed by Niraj
Panigarahi.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kamdara P.S. Case
No. 12/2013 was instituted under Sections 376, 302/201 IPC
against Niraj Panigarahi. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, case was
committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as
S.T.No.303/2013. Charge was framed against the accused under
Sections 302, 376(2) and 201 IPC and under Section 6 POCSO Act
which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses
2

in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 Ajit Guria has stated that on 26.04.2013 at 5.00
p.m., he had gone with his family to attend a fair and he had seen
the accused with the daughter of the informant who used to work
in a hotel. When he returned to the village, he came to know that
the daughter of the informant had not returned back. He has stated
that on 28.04.2013 he had come to know about a dead body lying
near the Middle School, Kamdara at which he had gone to the said
place and found the dead body to be that of the daughter of the
informant. From a look of the body, it seemed that she was
subjected to rape.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that at 5.00 p.m.,
he had himself seen the accused taking away the child to the fair.
There were no other persons accompanying them. His house is
situated adjacent to the hotel of Jidan Guria where the accused
used to work.
In his examination in-chief on recall, he has proved the
carbon copy of the inquest report which has been marked as
Exhibit-2.
6. P.W.2 Etwa Sahu has stated that in the fair at Kamdara
he was selling eatables and though he had not seen but had heard
that the daughter of Lakhnu Baraik is missing and after two days
he came to know that she has been murdered and the dead body
was thrown in the hillock. He had heard in the fair that the
daughter of the informant was brought to the fair by the accused
after which she disappeared. The persons who had gathered at the
spot where the dead body was found were discussing that the
deceased child was subjected to rape.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had heard
about the incident.

7. P.W.3 Niraj Kumar alias Niraj Prasad has stated that he
had gone to visit the fair at around 5.00-5.30 p.m. when he had
seen the accused playing with the daughter of the informant in a
swing. After visiting the fair he had returned home and on the next
3

day he had come to know that the daughter of the informant is
missing. On 28.04.2013 the dead body of the daughter of the
informant was found in the hillock. It seemed that the child was
subjected to rape and her face was also crushed with a stone. He
has proved his signature in the carbon copy of the inquest report
which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the police
had prepared the inquest report based on the actual state of the
body.
8. P.W.4 Dr. Saurav Prasad was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 29.04.13 he along with the
other members of the Board had conducted post-mortem on the
body of the daughter of the informant. He has proved the post-
mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he was a
member of the Medical Board which conducted the post-mortem
examination.
9. P.W.5 Lakhu Barahi is the father of the deceased. On
the date of occurrence his wife was working in the hotel of Jidan
Guria and his 6-year-old daughter was with her. The accused used
to work in the same hotel as a cook. The accused had enticed away
his daughter on the pretext of going to the fair but she did not
return and despite a search when she could not be traced out, his
wife had given a written report to the police station. He has proved
the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. After 2-3
days a dead body of a child was found near the Middle School and
he had gone to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body
to be that of his daughter. The police had come on information and
had prepared the inquest report after which the dead body was
sent for conducting post-mortem. He has stated that after the
incident his wife had disclosed that the accused had wanted her to
leave her husband with an assurance that he would provide her
with the same amount of money as was given to her by her husband.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he had seen
4

the accused taking away his daughter to visit the fair at 4.30 pm.
10. P.W.6 Biraj Devi is the informant and the mother of the
deceased who has stated that she was working as a maid servant in
the hotel of Jidan Gudia and her 6 year old daughter also stayed
with her. The accused was working in the same hotel as a cook.
She has stated that the accused had taken her daughter to visit the
fair at 5.30 p.m. but she did not return and despite conducting a
search she could not be traced out. After 3 days she came to know
that her daughter has been raped and murdered and her body was
found in the hillock after which she went to the place of occurrence
with her husband and villagers and found the face of her daughter
crushed with a stone and there were severe injuries in her private
part. After the police came, the written report was prepared in
which she had put her thumb impression which has been marked
as ‘X’ for identification. The police had sent the body for post-
mortem.
In cross-examination she has deposed that there was no
previous enmity with the accused.
11. P.W.7 Dr. Asha Ekka was posted as a Medical Officer in
Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 29.04.2013 the Medical Board had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of the daughter of the
informant and had found the following:-
“Condition of the dead body:-
1. Rigor mortis not present in any of the fore-limbs.
2. Brain matter was not liquefied.
3. Magots present over the entire body.
Injuries:-1. Crush lacerated wound over the left temporal
region of skull size:-6 inch x 3 inch into brain deep.
On dissection there was fracture of skull bone, all
brain matters coming out from the fractured portion of
skull.
2. Crush lacerated wound over the right temporal
region of skull, size:- 6 inch x 2 inch, into brain deep.
On dissection there was fracture of underlying skull
bone. Brain matter was coming out from the fractured
portion of skull.
3. Lacerated wound over the upper portion of left
thigh, size:- 4 inch x 3 inch into bone deep. On
5

dissection there was fracture of underlying femur
bone. Blood clot was present.
Finding:- Lungs was pale. Hearts all chambers
empty. Large blood vessels collapsed. Mouth open.
Teeth intact, eusophagus pale, stomach empty, small
intestine pale. Fecal matter and gas were present in
large intestine. Liver pale, spleen pale. Kidney pale.
In urinary bladder residual urin was present.
Genital organ:- hyman ruptured, multiple tears and
lacerations present in vegina.
On microscopical examination of veginal swab:- no
spermatozoa found, due to delay.”

The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and
haemorrhage. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object
and all the injuries were grievous in nature. She has proved the
signature of the members of the Medical Board upon the post-
mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1.
On a court question she has deposed that the victim
was subjected to rape and thereafter murdered.
12. P.W.8 Dinesh Prasad Rajak was posted as a Sub-
Inspector of Police in Kamdara P.S. and on 28.04.2013 he was
handed over the investigation of Kamdara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013.
He has proved the handwriting and signature of the Officer In-
charge in the endorsement in the written report which has been
marked as Exhibit-3/1. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which has
been marked as Exhibit-4. On reaching the place of occurrence the
inquest report was prepared. The signature on the inquest report
has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/2. He had recorded the
restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of
occurrence which is a lonely place near the Middle School. He had
recorded the statement of the witnesses who all have supported the
allegations. He had obtained the post-mortem report. He had
arrested the accused in Odisha. The transit remand has been
proved and marked as Exhibit-5. He has proved the arrest memo
which has been marked as Exhibit-6. He had recorded the
statement of the accused. On completion of investigation he had
6

submitted charge sheet. The charge sheet has been proved and
marked as Exhibit-7.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the incident
had taken place in a lonely spot in the jungle.
13. P.W.9 Geeta Kumari has stated that at the time of the
incident she was in her house and at 4.00 p.m. she had seen the
accused with a girl. The accused had come to her house and
wanted liquor and when she retorted that she does not prepare
liquor he went away. After 3 days there was an alarm in the village
that the body of a girl has been found in a hillock and she had also
gone to the said place where the body of the daughter of the
informant was found lying. The accused works in the hotel of Jidan
Guria as a cook while the informant cleans utensils. After the
occurrence the accused had fled to Odisha from where he was
arrested by the police.
In cross-examination she has deposed that in her
statement before police she had stated about seeing the accused
taking away a girl.
14. P.W.10 Dr. Javed Anwar was posted as a Medical Officer
in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and he was heading the Medical Board
which had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the daughter of
the informant. He has proved the signatures of the other members
of the Medical Board which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2.
15. P.W.11 Asha Barwa was posted as a Headmistress of
Middle School, Kamdara since 16.08.2015. She has proved serial
number 16 at page 3-4 of the admission register of the school
which has been marked as Exhibit-8. She has proved the certificate
issued by her regarding the date of birth of the deceased which has
been marked as Exhibit-9.
16. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the
commission of the offence.
17. The defence has examined two witnesses in its support.
18. D.W.1 Niraj Panigarahi is the accused who has stated
7

that at the time of the occurrence he was in his house at
Babhantola, Basia. He had not gone to watch the fair. He has
stated that he does not consume liquor. He has also stated that he
does not know anyone by the name of Shivani.
In cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of
the incident he was working as a cook in the hotel of Jidan Gudia.
The mother of the deceased used to work in the same hotel and her
daughter used to stay with her.
19. D.W.2 Niranjan Panigarahi is the brother of the accused
who has stated that on 26.04.2013 his brother was in his house.
In cross-examination he has deposed that wife of the
accused stays in Odisha. He does not know as to where the in-laws
of the accused stay. He also does not know that the accused has
two children.
20. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated
primarily on the basis of suspicion. There are no eye-witnesses to
the occurrence and only on the basis of last seen theory the
appellant has been convicted. There are no witnesses of the
prosecution who could vouch of the presence of the appellant and
the deceased near the place of occurrence. It has been submitted
that the dead body was not recovered in close proximity to the
deceased having been last seen with the appellant and on such
score itself the last seen theory fails. The owner of the hotel has not
been examined to ascertain as to whether the appellant was
working in his hotel on the date of occurrence and in fact the plea
of alibi as raised by the defence has also not been properly
appreciated by the learned trial court.
21. Mr. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the
last seen theory and the conduct of the appellant after the incident
is itself sufficient proof about the involvement of the appellant in
committing the rape and murder of the daughter of the informant.
22. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
8

23. The daughter of the informant, who stayed with the
informant, disappeared on 26.04.2013 and on 28.04.2013 her dead
body in a mutilated condition was recovered from a hillock near the
Middle School. The informant worked in the hotel of Jidan Guria as
a maidservant and so did the appellant who was engaged as a cook.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was not an
employee of the said hotel on the date of occurrence even though
the owner of the hotel was not examined. Admittedly, there are no
eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution
rests on circumstantial evidence of the deceased being last seen
with the appellant in the fair. The last seen theory has been
propounded by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 as all three had earlier
seen both of them in the fair or the appellant taking the deceased
to the fair. A different version has been given by P.W.9 who has
stated that the appellant had come to her house to purchase liquor
and a girl was with him and the time of her seeing both of them
together almost coincides with the disappearance of the deceased.
The appellant was well acquainted with the informant and the
deceased since the appellant and the informant used to work in the
same hotel. Despite this, the appellant who has examined himself
as D.W.1, has feigned ignorance about knowing the daughter of the
informant but in his cross-examination he has stated otherwise.
The contradictory evidence of the appellant is a weak attempt to
wriggle out of the situation he has found himself in. The dead body
of the daughter of the informant was recovered within two days of
her disappearance which would strengthen the last seen theory
attributed to the appellant. The defence has failed to evince even an
iota of contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and
P.W.9 and such evidence convincingly and unequivocally
establishes that the deceased was last seen with the appellant.
D.W.2, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, has tried to
raise a plea of alibi by stating that the appellant was in his house
on 26.04.2013 but the veracity and truthfulness of such evidence
can be ascertained from the fact that he does not even know how
9

many children the appellant had and the in-laws place of the
appellant despite being the own brother of the appellant and the
plea of alibi in the backdrop of the overwhelming materials on
record falters and no reliance can be placed on such defence. The
other aspect of the case is the conduct of the appellant. On coming
to know about the incident, a search was conducted of the
appellant who was the main suspect but he had absconded and
fled to Odisha from where he was arrested. No reasonable
explanation has been furnished by the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C
statement as to why and how he had landed up in Odisha all of a
sudden despite plying his trade in Basia.
24. On an overall conspectus of the case, it clearly
transpires that it was the appellant who was instrumental in
committing rape and murder of the six-year-old daughter of the
informant, the brutality of such act being stark on the face of the
autopsy report. The learned trial court having considered the
materials available on record in an appropriate fashion we do not
find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss
this appeal.
25. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands
closed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
th
Dated: 29 August 2026
Shamim/-
Uploaded on: 03 /09/2026
10