Back
1998 Supreme(Ori) 6
High Court Of Orissa
S. N. PHUKAN, P. K. TRIPATHY
BISI CHHURIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 33 Of 1992
Decided On : 01/08/1998
D.RATH, Jairaj Behera, R.C.RATH
1. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove a criminal offense, even in the absence of a motive. 2. Case diaries cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, I. P. C. - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT - CHALLENGE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION - ADMISSIBILITY - MOTIVE - CASE DIARY - USE AS EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the lower court. The prosecution's case was that the appellant killed the deceased, a 12-13 year old boy, by striking him with an axe on the neck. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and that there was no motive for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. It held that the circumstantial evidence, including the extra judicial confession made by the appellant, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. The court also held that the absence of a motive did not negate the prosecution's case. The court further held that the case diary could not be used as evidence to establish the motive behind the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. 2. Whether the absence of a motive negated the prosecution's case. 3. Whether the case diary could be used as evidence to establish the motive behind the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the extra judicial confession made by the appellant, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. The court noted that the appellant was found near the body of the deceased with the murder weapon in his hand, and that he had made a confession to the crime. The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was provoked or that he acted in self-defense. 2. The court held that the absence of a motive did not negate the prosecution's case. The court noted that motive is not an essential element of the crime of murder, and that the prosecution is not required to prove a motive in order to secure a conviction. 3. The court held that the case diary could not be used as evidence to establish the motive behind the crime. The court noted that Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that police diaries cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
P. K. TRIPATHY, J.
( 1 ) THE accused in Sessions Case No. 90/5 of 1991 has challenged the order of conviction under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentence of life imprisonment vide judgment dated 18-11-1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir.
( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, as reveals from the lower Court record, is that in the morning hours on 25-7-90 Saibasuta Chhuria, a boy aged about 12 to 13 years (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had gone to the field to tend to the goats. There he was killed by the appellant who dealt axe blow to the neck of the deceased. Though the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody but soon after the occurrence the brother of the deceased Chakaman Chhuria (P. W. 7) reached there to hand over food to the deceased. When he called aloud his brother the accused from the spot of the occurrence on the field responded by saying that the deceased was no more alive as he (the appellant) killed him (the deceased ). P. W. 7 went nearer and found the deceased was lying dead with cut and bleeding injury on his neck and the accused was moving round the dead body holding the axe (M. O. I.) and threatened P. W. 7 to kill if he would go further nearer. Similarly, Mununga Mahakud, aunt (father's sister) of the deceased had gone to work on her field (where the occurrence took place) and saw the same scene like P. W. 7 and same reaction of the appellant. She came and informed the matter to her husband Maya Mahakud (P. W. 4) P. W. 4 went to the spot, saw the accused moving round the dead body holding the axe and being advised he went and reported the matter in the Police Station. Said Mununga had also intimated about the murder to her brother Gupteswar Chhuria (P. W. 1) father of the deceased. P. W. 1 rushed to the spot and saw the accused standing with the axe and the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the appellant did not allow him and other co-villagers to go near the dead body. It is the further case of the prosecution that before the co-villagers and relations of the deceased whosoever reached the spot the appellant voluntarily made confessional statement that he killed the deceased. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 12) conducted a routine investigation. On completion of the same and having found a prima facie case submitted charge sheet for the offence of murder. Charge was framed under section 302, I. P. C. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
( 3 ) TO substantiate the charge prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Out of them P. Ws. 1 and 7 are witnesses to prove extra judicial confession besides relating to the circumstantial evidence that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of P. W. 4 where the accused was moving round the dead body holding the bloodstained axe (M. O. I.) and was not permitting anybody to come near the dead body; P. Ws. 2 and 4 are also witnesses to the circumstantial evidence that the appellant being armed with axe was moving round the dead body of the deceased P. W. 12 is the I. O. who seized the M. O. I. , bloodstained and sample earth, bloodstained wearing apparels of the deceased (M. Os. II and III) and bloodstained wearing apparels of the appellant (M. Os. IV, V and VI) and P. Ws. 3, 5 and 10 as witnesses to the different seizures; P. W. 2 as witness to the inquest as well as a witness to the measurement of the land made by the Revenue Inspector (P. W. 9); P. W. 6 as witness regarding collection of nail clippings of the appellant; P. W. 11 the police constable, regarding identification of the dead body taken for post-mortem examination; and P. W. 8, the Doctor who held autopsy on the dead body, to prove the post-mortem report (Ext. 9) and also opinion report (Ext. 10 ). Prosecution also relied upon the above noted exhibited documents besides the report of the chemical examiner and serologist (Ext. 16) relating to presence of human blood in different material objects.
( 4 ) THE appellant adhered to the plea of complete denial. However, h
