Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 154
High Court Of Orissa
S. N. PHUKAN, ARIJIT PASAYAT
STATE OF ORISSA - Appellant
Versus
SIMANCHAL GOUDA - Respondent
G. A. 67 Of 1983
Decided On : 09/26/1996
S.K.PADHI
The court provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing the evaluation of evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, the significance of delayed submission of FIR, the relationship between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, the requirements for a complete chain of circumstances, the principles governing dying declarations, and the role of corroboration in establishing guilt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ACQUITTAL - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - DYING DECLARATION - WITNESSES - CREDIBILITY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Acquittal by the trial court in a murder case challenged by the State on the ground that the dying declaration alone was sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused. 2. Witnesses' evidence, including relatives and inimically disposed witnesses, must be critically analyzed for credibility and probative value. 3. Delayed submission of the FIR and unexplained reasons raise suspicion and require scrutiny. 4. Medical evidence may not be conclusive when credible eyewitness accounts exist. 5. Chain of circumstances must be complete, excluding all reasonable hypotheses except the guilt of the accused. 6. Dying declaration, if found acceptable, can form the sole basis for conviction, but it must be carefully scrutinized for veracity and voluntariness. 7. Corroboration of a dying declaration is not an absolute requirement but a rule of prudence. 8. Dying declaration must be free from tutoring, prompting, imagination, and made by a person in a fit state of mind. 9. Dying declaration should be preferred over medical opinion if there is a conflict between the two. 10. Plurality of dying declarations, if coherent and consistent, can be accepted. 11. Dying declaration must be analyzed for truthfulness, coherence, and consistency before relying on it for conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Kantaru Naik, was allegedly dragged from his house and assaulted by eight accused persons. He was tied to a pole and questioned about witchcraft training. The accused then took him to the threshing floor of accused Jadu and continued the assault. The deceased was forced to write an undertaking that he would be responsible for any witchcraft practiced in the village. The accused entered the house of Bhima Gouda (P.W. 10) and tried to assault him, but he managed to escape. The deceased was admitted to the hospital and died on 19-3-1982. The accused were charged with offenses punishable under Ss. 147, 302, and 452 read with S. 149, IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that there were material differences in the versions given by the so-called eyewitnesses. The court also found that the version of the eyewitnesses was at great variance with the evidence of the Doctor regarding the location of injuries. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the unacceptable dying declaration further supported the acquittal.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declaration alone was sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused despite the acquittal by the trial court? 2. How should the evidence of witnesses, including relatives and inimically disposed witnesses, be evaluated for credibility and probative value? 3. What is the significance of delayed submission of the FIR and unexplained reasons in assessing the reliability of evidence? 4. How should medical evidence be considered in relation to credible eyewitness accounts? 5. What are the requirements for a chain of circumstances to be considered complete and sufficient to establish guilt? 6. What are the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations? 7. Is corroboration of a dying declaration an absolute requirement for conviction? 8. How should the court approach conflicting evidence between a dying declaration and medical opinion? 9. How should multiple dying declarations be evaluated for their truthfulness and reliability?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court was justified in directing the acquittal of the accused. The evidence of the eyewitnesses was found to be unreliable due to material differences in their versions and inconsistencies with the medical evidence. The delayed submission of the FIR and the unacceptable dying declaration further supported the acquittal. 2. The court emphasized the need for critical analysis of the evidence of witnesses, including relatives and inimically disposed witnesses, to determine their credibility and probative value. The court noted that relatives are expected to bring accusations against the actual offender and not shield him by falsely implicating an innocent person. 3. The court held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and suspicious reasons for the delay raise doubts about the possibility of false implication and embellishment. The court stressed the importance of scrutinizing the reasons given for the delay and considering their acceptability. 4. The court clarified that medical opinion may not be conclusive when there are credible eyewitness accounts. The court emphasized the importance of the quality of the trial process and the need for careful independent assessment and evaluation of eyewitness accounts to determine their credibility. 5. The court reiterated the 'panchsheel' of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and forming a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 6. The court outlined the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, including the requirement for full establishment of the circumstances, consistency with other credible evidence, and the absence of tutoring, prompting, or imagination. The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny to ensure the veracity and voluntariness of the dying declaration. 7. The court clarified that corroboration of a dying declaration is not an absolute requirement for conviction but a rule of prudence. The court held that the dying declaration, if found acceptable, can form the sole basis for conviction without further corroboration. 8. The court stated that where there is a conflict between a dying declaration and medical opinion, the court should prefer the dying declaration if it is found to be true and voluntary. The court noted that medical opinion cannot prevail over the eyewitness account of the deceased. 9. The court held that where there are multiple dying declarations, the one first in point of time should be preferred. However, if the plurality of dying declarations can be considered truthful, worthy, and reliable, they can be accepted.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) JUDGMENT of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur directing acquittal of eight respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' by name) is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by the State.
( 2 ) ACCUSATIONS which led to trial of the accused essentially are as follows :on 14-3-1982 accused Simanchal Gouda, Bhagaban Gouda, Bhima Gouda, Rama Gouda and Burunda Gouda went to the house of Kantaru Naik (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') of village Jalameripalli and dragged him to village Dherendi. On the way they were assaulting the deceased by slaps, fist blows and kicks. After they reached village Dharendi, accused Gandu, Burunda and Jadu joined them, and assaults continued by all the eight. Deceased was tied to a pole by means of a rope, and was asked whether he had received any training in witchcraft from Bhima Gouda (P. W. 10 ). When the deceased denied to have received any such training, they took him to the threshing floor of accused Jadu and assaulted him there. Again enquiry was made about the training. Being afraid of further assault, deceased implicated Bhima saying that he had received some training in witchcraft from P. W. 10. After this, accused Bhima Gouda, Rama Gouda and Bhagaban Gouda went to the house of Bhima Gouda (P. W. 10), and brought him to the threshing floor forcibly. Thereafter Tabatia Gouda and Gandu Panda, P. Ws. 2 and 3 respectively arrived at the threshing floor and advised the accused persons to go to village square to settle the dispute. So the accused persons brought the deceased and P. W. 10 to the village square where a meeting was held. On hearing about such acts of assault on the deceased, his wife (P. W. 4) and daughter (P. W. 1) came to the spot but returned to their village, when it became dark. In the meeting the accused persons made the deceased to write an undertaking to the effect that he will be responsible for any witchcraft practised in future in village Dherendi, said undertaking is contained in Ext. 1. In the night the accused persons entered into the house of Bhima (P. W. 10) forcibly and tried to assault him, but P. W. 10 managed to escape and went away from his house through the back-door to village Bhimagiri. From there he tried to go to Pattapur Police Station on the next day, but could not do so as he missed the bus. He got the first information-report (Ext. 11) written by a school student on 15-3-1982, and on the next day at about 9 p. m. handed over the same to Shri K. Bhima Rao. A. S. I. of Police of Pattapur Police Station (P. W. 13 ). On receiving said report, P. S. Case No. 21 of 1982 was registered, and investigation was undertaken. On the next day morning, the wife and the daughter of the deceased came to village Dherandi along with four of their co-villagers, and carried away the deceased, who was lying on the verandah of one Gonia Naik to their own village. Rahesa Naikani, wife of the deceased along with the deceased wanted to go to Pattapur Police Station to lodge the information, but they came back as there was none to help them. Rahasa got her husband admitted into Bhiamagiri Hospital on 17-3-1982. As his condition became serious, his dying declaration was recorded on 19-3-1982 vide Ext. 7 by the attending Doctor. Deceased breathed his last on 19-3-1982. After the investigation was over chargesheet was submitted against the accused personsfor commission of offences punishable under Ss. 147, 342, 302, 452 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc' ). The accused were committed to the Court of Session to face trial. They were charged for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 147, 302, and 452 read with S. 149, IPC by the learned trial Judge.
( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded innocence and faced trial.
( 4 ) THIRTEEN witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. Reliance was placed by the prosecution mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10, who claimed to
