Back
2003 (1) Crimes 252
Orissa High Court (DB)
B. Panigrahi & Ch. P.K. Misra, JJ.
Panchu @ Panchanan Mohapatra—Appellant
versus
State of Orissa —Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 132 of 1990
Decided on 12-11-2002
For the Appellant :M/s. D.P. Dhal and Mr. S.K. Nayak, Mr. Banbihari Nayak, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel.
Important Point
Circumstance of accused found absconding may lend some weight to other evidence establishing guilt of accused but by itself can hardly be an evidence of guilt.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Dead body of dece-ased found lying in jungle with stab injuries — Conviction based by trial court on circumstantial evidence — Appeal — Circumstances sought to be proved were last seen theory of deceased with appellant, appellant found absconding from village after incident and notice — Circumstance of appellant absconding was a weak-link in the chain — Unsatisfactory evidence on the circumstance of deceased last seen in company of appellant — Motive also not proved by cogent evidence except state-ment of father of deceased that deceased had pledged gold orna-ments of his sister with accused for Rs. 1500/- and despite repayment of loan ornaments were not being returned — No attempt made during investigation to recover ornaments — Law relating to guilt to be proved by circumstantial evidence — Prose-cution could not be said to have proved guilt of appellant. (Paras 7 to 11 & 13)
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 8 — Conduct of accused absconding from the place after commission of crime is relevant — It may lend some weight to other evidence establishing guilt of accused but by itself is hardly an evidence of guilt.
Held: The very absconding may lend some weight to the other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, but by itself it is hardly an evidence of guilt. The conduct of one making himself scarce for some days is rele-vant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and might be indicative to some extent of a guilty mind, but it is not the only conclusion which must lead the Court to hold a person guilty.
Even an innocent person may when suspected of a grave crime be tempted to evade arrest and such is the instinct of self-preservation in an average human being. Absconding is a weak-link in the chain of circum-stances and even innocent person
may try to keep out of the way, learning about false implication in a serious crime reported to police. Therefore, such circumstance does not militate the plea of innocence of the appellant. (Para 7)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgment
B. Panigrahi, J.— This appeal is directed against the order of convic-tion and sentence passed under Section 302, IPC by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 31/165 of 1989 directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment
for life.
2. The short story of the prose-cution as unfolded in course of trial is as follows :
P.W. 8, Hatakishore Lenka of village Kathuaredi lodged a report at Brahmagiri Police Station by stating that on 4-8-1988 around 6.00 P.M. while he was returning from his paddy field situated near Luniary jungle he noticed that some crows were chirping inside the jungle. Out of curiosity he alongwith one Rabi Baral of village Hatia went to the jungle and found an old Khurda napkin (M.O. VII) lying at the entrance of the jungle. They also marked streak of blood in the nearby area. After they advanced a little distance, they found a young man aged about 25 years lying dead beneath a mango tree with pool of blood. Such incident, however, aroused their sus-picion that some miscreants must have committed an offence of murder. They returned to their village and disclosed the fact to the other villagers. They further brought to the notice of a constable stationed at their village. On the basis of such information the constable went alongwith them and found the dead body at the scene of occurrence whereupon he guarded the dead body and asked P.W. 8 to lodge the information at Brahmagiri Police Station. Accordingly a report was lod-ged vide Ext. 3 at the Police Station during the absence of the O.I.C. P.W. 11, the A.S.I. of Brahmagiri Police Station treated the report as FIR, Ext. 3 and registered P.S. Case No. 115 of 1988 and immediately thereafter swung into action. He visited the spot alongwith other staff at 9.15 P.M. with P.W. 8. The dead body was lying in the northern side of the jungle with the face upward. He waited till arrival of the O.I.C., P.W. 21, who went on duty of C.I. of Sadar P.S. and on way back after hearing about the incident he rushed towards the scene of occurrence. He sent an information to the S.P. of Puri for deputing the Police doing and scientific team of D.F.S.L., Puri. He held inquest on 5-8-1988 at about 5.30 A.M. over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report, Ext. 1, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot vide Ext. 2. Even after arrival of the Police dog no clue could be gathered so also the assistance of the scientific team was of no avail. On 5-8-1988 at about 12.30 P.M. P.W. 21 despatched the dead body for post mortem exa-mination to the District headquarters hospital. He recorded the statement of the witness. He conducted a frantic search to apprehend the appellant, but no arrest could be effected. P.W. 21 seized one knife on production by P.W. 6 vide seizure list. Ext. 9. On 6-8-1988 P.W. 21 seized the Lungi (M.O.I) belonging to the deceased and also one cotton string on production by the constable after post mortem examination vide seizure list Ext. 10. It was gathered that the deceased died of injuries which were ante mortem in nature. From the date of occurrence till 5-2-1989 the appellant could not be apprehended. Finally he was arrested on 5-2-1989 and forwarded on 8-2-1989. On the prayer of the prosecution the S.D.J.M., Puri held T.I. Parade of the accused on 14-2-1989 and 21-2-1989. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against the appellant.
3. The defence plea in the trial Court was one of denial of occurrence and the appellant had claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The motive for commission of the crime by the appellant in course of trial was however, strongly refuted by the appellant. He also denied his abscondence from the village.
5. The prosecution in all exa-mined 21 witnesses in order to sustain conviction against the appellant. The learned trial Court basing on the circumstantial
