Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 501

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Sabitri Samantaray - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017
Bidyadhar Praharaj - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
With Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2022 (arising out of S.L.P (CRL.) No. 3881 of 2017)
Decided On : 20-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anindita Pujari, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Azad Bansala,Adv. Ms. Prakriti Rastogi,Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Ms. Swati Vaibhav,Adv.

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.

Headnote:
Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - 302, 201, 109, 34 - 304 (II) - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the murder of a person who had a love relationship with their daughter. The High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 (II) IPC and upheld the conviction of the appellants. The deceased was found dead in the appellants' house, and the prosecution successfully established the chain of events leading to the death.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found the appellants guilty based on circumstantial evidence and the relationship between the deceased and the appellants' daughter. The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden was on the appellants to prove otherwise.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof and established the chain of events to attract the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving things within special knowledge on the individual. It held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, and the burden was on the appellants to prove otherwise.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks.

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

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 Jajpur, 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 PM 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 and, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document