Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 171
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, R. K. DASH
DHARANI PRADHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
J. CRI. A. 34 Of 1992
Decided On : 10/29/1996
R.K.BOSE, R.K.MOHANTY
The inadmissibility of a confession made in the presence of the police, the requirement for conclusive circumstantial evidence, and the insufficiency of motive alone to establish guilt.
Headnote:
Confession - Murder - Ss. 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code - Ss. 302, 201 - The court discussed the inadmissibility of the confession made before the police, the lack of evidentiary value of the alleged recovery, the insufficiency of medical evidence, and the triteness of motive as a ground for guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his sister based on circumstantial evidence, including confession before witnesses, recovery of the weapon of assault, seizure of incriminating materials, medical evidence, and motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the confession made before the police was inadmissible, the alleged recovery lacked evidentiary value, medical evidence did not connect the accused to the crime, and motive alone cannot be sufficient to establish guilt.
Issues: The admissibility of the confession made before the police, the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery, the sufficiency of medical evidence, and the role of motive in establishing guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the inadmissibility of a confession made in the presence of the police, the requirement for conclusive circumstantial evidence, and the insufficiency of motive alone to establish guilt.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) IN this appeal appellant Dharani Pradan (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') calls in question legality of his conviction and imposition of sentence for offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code (in short 'ipc' ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur found him guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S. 302, IPC and one year for the other offence.
( 2 ) ACCUSED faced trial for allegedly having committed murder of one Kuntala Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who happened to be sister of the accused. Law was set into motion by Sankar Behera (P. W. 1) who filed the First Information Report (Ext. 1) inter alia indicating that Madan Chhatria found dead body of the deceased at an isolated spot. On hearing this several persons ran to the spot, and FIR was lodged on 29-10-1990 at about 6 p. m. Investigation was handed over to the Circle Inspector by the Sub-Inspector of Police who had initially investigated into the case. Circle Inspector of Police re-examined the witnesses, arrested the accused, who confessed to have committed the murder of his sister, and to have concealed the weapon of assault near a bushy jungle. He lead the police officials who seized the weapon of assault. Accused confessed to have committed the murder before Bibhuti Bhusan Dhal (P. W. 4), Bijaya Kumar Naik (P. W. 5) and Mohini Mohan Sahu (P. W. 7 ).
( 3 ) IN order to establish its accusation, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence.
( 4 ) LEARNED trial Judge found five circumstances against the accused to hold him guilty. They are (1) the confession before P. Ws. 4, 5 and 7, (2) recovery of the weapon of assault on the basis of information derived from confession of the accused, (3) seizure of incriminating materials, (4) medical evidence and (5) motive to commit the crime.
( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, Mr. R. K. Bose appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submits that the alleged confession was made before the police and, therefore is inadmissible in evidence. Recovery of the materials alleged to have been made was done after considerable lack of time from an open space which is freely accessable. Motive cannot be a ground to hold a person guilty. MR. R. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the judgment of conviction and sentence.
( 6 ) WHEN the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it has to establish that there is no missing link in chain of circumstances, which is complete and unerringly point at the accused to be the author of the crime. In a case depending largely on the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. Suspicion however, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. The Court has a duty to be watchful to ensure that conjectures or suspicion do not creep into substitute legal proof. Unless the various circumstances on the chain establish clearly and completely, and there is no scope even for entertaining a reasonable doubt about the innocence of the accused, conviction should not be made. It has to be borne in mind that in a case where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established to he consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. They should be of a conclusive nature; and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. Mahajan, J. (as the Hon'ble Judge was then) in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : (1953 Cri LJ 129) in this regard quoted a passage containing the warning administered by baron Alderson to the Jury in Rec v. Hedge (1938) 2 Lew CC 227, which was as under :-"the mind was apt Co take a pleasure in adopting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a littl
