Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 392

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Jasobanta Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.493 of 2022
Decided On : 30-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T.N. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Gautam Das, AOR Mr. Pragyesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Bebarta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Conviction solely based on recovery would not be tenable.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Trial Court and High Court have basically rested conviction on the basis of testimonies of PWs – There are inconsistencies in evidence of PWs – High Court has also believed extra-judicial confession made by accused-appellant to a co-villager – Serious doubt arises from conduct of PWs as to whether they were really eyewitnesses to incident or not – Evidence of I.O. and Panch witnesses would reveal that recovery of weapon was made from an open place – As such, much reliance cannot be placed on such recovery – In any case, conviction, solely based on such recovery, would not be tenable – Prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by Trial Court and as affirmed by High Court are not sustainable in law – Appellant acquitted of all charges charged with. (Paras 7, 15, 18, 20, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeal challenges final judgment and order dated 17th July, 2014, passed by Orissa High Court, Cuttack, in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2000. Vide impugned judgment, High Court affirmed judgment dated 26th August, 2000, passed by Trial Court whereby appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.2-A of 1989 as well as Judgment and order dated 17th July 2014 passed by Orissa High Court, Cuttack in Jail Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2000 is quashed and set aside. Appellant is acquitted of all charges charged with. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The present criminal appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 17th July, 2014, passed by the Orissa High Court, Cuttack (“High Court” for short), in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2000. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the judgment dated 26th August, 2000, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal (“Trial Court” for short) in Sessions Trial No. 2-A of 1989, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present appeal, are as follows:

2.1 On 9th October, 1988, the Police Station Jarapada, Angul, District Dhenkanal, received oral information at 3 PM from Hemanta Kumar Sahu (PW-4) and Maheswar Pradhan, to the effect that Laxminarayan Sahu has been murdered. On the basis of the oral information, the Office In-Charge, Jarapada Police Station (PW22) (“I.O.” for short), registered a First Information Report (Exhibit-1) vide Crime No. 40(3) of 1988 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. On registration of the FIR, the I.O. visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the appellant as well as the deceased. The I.O. also arrested the appellant on 13th October, 1988, and thereafter, the appellant led to discovery of weapon of offence, i.e., knife (M.O.1). He also made a query to the doctor and sent the incriminating articles for chemical examination.

2.2 The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the appellant and deceased were having strained relationship on account of property dispute. Laxminarayan Sahu (deceased), one Brajabandhu Sahu and Bhagaban Sahu (PW-14) were brothers. The appellant is the son of Brajabandhu Sahu. There was a partition of family properties between the three brothers and their mother, in which their mother was allotted Ac.1.80 decimals of land for her maintenance. She was staying most of the times either with PW14-Bhagaban Sahu or with the deceased. After her death, about four years prior to the date of occurrence, Brajabandhu Sahu wanted to divide the landed property belonging to his mother, which was objected to by the other brothers. Disputes thus arose between Brajabandhu Sahu and the appellant on one side and the other two brothers on the other side. This led to litigations between the parties. On 9th October, 1988, Laxminarayan Sahu (deceased) went to his land to plough, the appellant reached there at about 12:30 PM and stabbed Laxminarayan Sahu repeatedly by using a knife, as a result of which Laxminarayan Sahu died at the spot.

2.3 On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the appellant. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul, District Angul in G.H. Case No. 509 of 1988 vide Jarapada P.S. Case No. 40 dated 9th October, 1988, to the Sessions Court.

2.4 Charge was framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined twenty-two (22) witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution also exhibited twenty-one (21) documents. It also proved seven (7) material objects including the knife (M.O.1). The defence did not examine any witness. Three (3) documents were admitted into evidence for defence. The appellant completely denied the allegations. He claimed that due to the land disputes, a case has been filed to harass him and to grab his land. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 24th August, 1991, held that it is not a case under Section 302 IPC, but a case under Section 304 Part- I of IPC. Since the appellant was in custody for nearly three years at that time, considering his young age and close relationship with the deceased, the Trial Court held that a sentence of three years will meet