Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Sabitri Samantaray – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017
WITH
Bidyadhar Praharaj – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2022, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3881 of 2017
Decided On : 20-05-2022
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving prosecution from its burden to establish guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against accused – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in chain of events. (Paras 18 and 19)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304 Part II and 201 read with Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – At the time of death of deceased, only accused appellants were present inside house – Contention of appellants that gathered mass of people had in fact assaulted deceased and destroyed his face, has rightly been rejected by High Court as being devoid of any material evidence made in support of claim – Statement of second set of witnesses clearly spells out a motive for commission of offence – It also establishes that claim made by accused appellants that deceased was not known to them is also false – Statement of medical expert revealed that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to compression of lower part of neck resulting in blockage of upper end of trachea – It was opined that deceased was assaulted by two or more persons and that injuries were homicidal in nature – Prosecution had succeeded in establishing intention of appellants for commission of offence – Such intention, when analyzed in light of statements made by all sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by deceased at relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case that death of deceased was indeed caused by appellants – Once prosecution had successfully established chain of events, burden was on appellants to prove it otherwise – Entire sequence of events strongly point towards guilt of accused appellants – Appellants have failed to offer any credible defence in this regard – No error in impugned judgment passed by High Court – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed by High Court of Odisha at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2015. The Appellants are wife and husband respectively. The two have been arrayed as accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 in FIR No. 120 of 2008. Appellants herein along with their daughter (accused no. 3) had been charged with offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sessions Court Jaipur, in C.T. Case No. 76 of 2010 convicted accused no. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further sentence of six months in case of default in payment of fine. Their daughter i.e. Accused No. 3 was convicted under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and further sentence of six months in case of default in payment of fine. Subsequently, the High Court vide order impugned herein acquitted daughter of the appellants of all charges, but upheld the conviction of Appellants. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, however, was modified to conviction under Section 304 (II) IPC and, therefore, sentence term was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in case of default.
Key issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof, and that the chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract application of Section 106 of Evidence Act.
Findings of Court:
Bail bonds of the two accused stands cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today failing which they shall be taken into police custody for the said purpose.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3881 of 2017.
2. Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Odisha at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2015. The Appellants herein, namely Sabitri Samantaray and Bidyadhar Praharaj are wife and husband respectively. The two have been arrayed as accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 in FIR No. 120 of 2008. The Appellants herein along with their daughter (accused no. 3) had been charged with offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Sessions Court Jaipur, in C.T. Case No. 76 of 2010 convicted accused no. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further sentence of six months in case of default in payment of fine. Their daughter i.e. Accused No. 3 was convicted under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further sentence of six months in case of default in payment of fine. Subsequently, the High Court vide order impugned herein acquitted the daughter of the appellants of all charges, but upheld the conviction of the Appellants. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, however, was modified to conviction under Section 304 (II) IPC and therefore, sentence term was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in case of default.
Factual Matrix
3. The accused appellants herein were tenants of one Mayadhar Mohapana. The said landlord on 21.07.2008, lodged an FIR stating that an unknown person had attacked the accused appellants at around 7:30 P.M. while he was watching television in his house. The landlord stated that he had heard a loud cry from the portion of his house which was rented to the appellants, and as he rushed to inquire what had happened, he saw an unknown person assaulting the appellants with a “Kata.” Consequently, the landlord cried for help, and as other people gathered around the house, he rescued the couple through an inter-connected door.
4. This unknown person remained inside the appellants’ house. Police arrived at the spot, searched all rooms, whereafter, the person was found dead inside the kitchen of the house. It was initially suspected that he had committed suicide by consuming poison. Subsequently, the body was sent for autopsy, and was thereafter preserved for identification. On 24.07.2008, one Ranjan Rana identified the deceased to be Sanjay Rana. He further disclosed that the deceased had a love relationship with the daughter of the appellants.
5. Post-mortem examination of the body was also conducted and it was opined by the doctor that death was caused by compression on lower part of the neck, resulting in blockage of upper end of the trachea. It was further opined that the deceased victim was assaulted by two or more persons with acid and blunt objects. Thus, death was homicidal in nature. In consequence thereof, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellants and their daughter (accused no. 3) for offences under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 34 IPC.
6. The accused appellants on the contrary maintained that the unknown person had forcibly entered into their house and locked it from inside. He first encountered accused no. 1 (i.e. Bidyadhar Praharaj) and threatened to kill him, should he refused to hand over entire money and valuables. Subsequently, both the appellants were assaulted by the deceased, which resulted in injuries. They were eventually rescued, and thereafter police implicated them in a false case.
7. The Sessions Court, vide its judgment dated 30.03.2015, held that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt a
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201.
The burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires the accused to provide a credible explanation for facts especially within their knowledge. Failure to do so can become an additional link in ....
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
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
