Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
The State of Odisha - Petitioner
Versus
Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1156 of 2021
Decided On : 12-02-2021
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction – In a criminal case involving serious offence of murder, Courts do not ordinarily dismiss appeal against a judgment and order of Trial Court, whether of conviction or of acquittal, on sole ground of some delay – This is to prevent miscarriage of justice – In present case, there is no conclusive evidence that death was homicidal – There is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep – Post mortem report suggests that death could have been accidental – Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of proof – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 15, 18, 34, 38 and 40)
(B) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused – There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability, act must have been done by accused. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
Present Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha is against a final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissing an application for leave to appeal being CRLLP No.14 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner State, against a judgment dated 14th January, 2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Findings of Court:
Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha is against a final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissing an application for leave to appeal being CRLLP No.14 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner State, against a judgment dated 14th January, 2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner State forcefully contended that the High Court committed gross error in dismissing the application for leave to appeal filed by the Petitioner State on the ground of delay of 41 days, even though, there were serious charges against the Accused Respondents, including charges of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. It is true that the appeal has, by the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd November 2020, been dismissed on the ground of delay of only 41 days in filing the CRLLP.
4. In a criminal case involving the serious offence of murder, the Courts do not ordinarily dismiss an appeal against a judgment and order of the Trial Court, whether of conviction or of acquittal, on the sole ground of some delay. This is to prevent miscarriage of justice.
5. However, in this case the application of the Petitioner State, for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of the Respondent Accused, has been rejected on the ground of delay, but after considering the merits of application for leave to appeal.
6. We have considered the contentions of the State of Odisha being the petitioner before us. As per an FIR lodged with the police by one Gitanjali Tadu, hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”, her husband Bijay Kumar Tadu, hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”, had been working in the Home Guard, Chandabali and deputed at Chandabali Police Station.
7. According to the Complainant, the deceased used to move around with the first accused, Banabihari Mohapatra, who had an electric sales and repairing shop styled “Raja Electricals” at the Ferry Ghat area near the Chandabali bus stand.
8. In the FIR, it is alleged that the first accused came to the residence of the deceased at around 7.30 a.m. on 23rd June, 2014 and told the Complainant that the deceased had been lying motionless and still, not responding to calls. Later his younger son Luja alias Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra being the second Respondent also came and informed the complainant that the deceased was lying motionless.
9. On hearing this, the Complainant along with her family members went to the Ferry Ghat near the Chandabali Bus Stand and found her husband lying dead inside a room which was locked, with a swollen belly and a deep burn injury on his right foot which was apparently caused by electric shock. The body of the deceased appeared black and blood was oozing out from the mouth and nostril of the deceased.
10. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged that on 22nd June, 2016, the deceased had left the house to go to the house of a relative. He had been wearing a gold chain on his neck and two gold rings on his fingers, and had been carrying Rs.800 for purchase of a new pair of pants and shirt and Rs.5,000/- for purchase of articles for a marriage.
11. On making enquiries the complainant learnt that the deceased had not visited the house of the relative on that day. The complainant has alleged that the Accused No.1 Banabihari Mohapatra, his son Luja alias Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra, being the Accused No.2, and other accomplices committed murder of her husband by applying electric shock to him after administering some poisonous substances to him.
12. The Sessions Judge Bhadrak framed charges against the Accused Respondents Banabihari Mohapatra and Luja @ Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra alleging that, together they had intentionally caused the death of the deceased, thereby committing murder and had
In a criminal case involving serious offence of murder, Courts do not ordinarily dismiss appeal against a judgment and order of Trial Court, whether of conviction or of acquittal, on sole ground of s....
The need for conclusive evidence and a much higher degree of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the importance of circumstantial ....
The judgment emphasizes the principle of presumption of innocence, the need for clear and convincing evidence of guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal unless there are substanti....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal is upheld when evidence does not convincingly establish guilt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
