ORISSA HIGH COURT
P. K. MOHANTI AND B. K. BEHERA, JJ.
BUTY AND OTHERS
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA
Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1978,
Decided on : 25 -11 -1981.
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, 201 IPC - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS - CORROBORATION - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 24 - ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS - VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS - DISCOVERY OF DEAD BODY AND ORNAMENTS - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, read with Section 34, IPC, for killing the deceased, Saraswati Misra, and concealing her body in a water reservoir. The prosecution's case was based on extra-judicial confessions made by the appellants before several witnesses, evidence that the deceased was last seen alive going to the appellants' house, and the discovery of the deceased's body and ornaments in consequence of the appellants' statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' extra-judicial confessions were voluntary and corroborated by the discovery of the deceased's body and ornaments, as well as by circumstantial evidence. The court also found that the appellants acted in concert in causing the death of the deceased and throwing her body in the water reservoir to conceal the evidence of murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the extra-judicial confessions of the appellants were admissible and reliable. 2. Whether the discovery of the deceased's body and ornaments corroborated the appellants' confessions. 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the extra-judicial confessions of the appellants were admissible and reliable, as they were made voluntarily and corroborated by the discovery of the deceased's body and ornaments. The court also noted that the witnesses who testified about the confessions were disinterested and independent, and there was no reason to disbelieve their evidence. 2. The court found that the discovery of the deceased's body and ornaments in consequence of the appellants' statements corroborated their confessions. The court also noted that the medical evidence supported the appellants' confession that they had throttled the deceased to death. 3. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the fact that the deceased was last seen alive going to the appellants' house, the freshly plastered floor in the appellants' bedroom, and the burning bundle of agarbati, supported the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellants' appeal and upheld their convictions and sentences.
JUDGEMENT
P. K. Mohanti, J. :- The appellants have been convicted under Ss.302 and 201, I.P.C. both read with S.34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under S.302/34, I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under S.201/34, I.P.C.
2. Prosecution case was that on 25-6-1977 at about noon the deceased Saraswati Misra of village Fatabahel left for village Budelpalli for arranging straw and approached P.W. 5 Purusottam Bhoi for the purpose. When he refused to give straw, she went to the house of the appellants to realise rice from them which they were to pay towards the interest of a loan incurred by them some months prior to the occurrence. Since the deceased did not return to the house till evening, her son Krushnakanta (P.W. 11) sent P.W. 4 Srimati Matari and one Dusta to search for her. Those two persons informed Krushnakanta that they came to know from P.W. 5 Purusottam Bhoi that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellants and had returned to her house. On 26-6-1977, a meeting was held at village Budelpalli and the appellants were asked as to what happened to the deceased. They said that the deceased had left their house in the afternoon. On 27-6-1977 afternoon, another meeting was held by the villagers of Budelpalli and Fatabahal and the appellants are alleged to have confessed that they had killed the deceased in the afternoon of 25-6-1977 when she came to their house to demand payment of rice and there was altercation between them.
3. In the morning of 27-6-1977, P.W. 3 Rajanikant Mishra who is the son of the deceased and an employee in the Burla Engineering College approached the Circle Inspector of Police and gave a missing report (Ext. 4). The Circle Inspector forwarded the missing report to the Officer-in-charge of Sason Police Station and the latter deputed the A.S.I. (P.W. 12) in the afternoon of 27-6-1977 to equire into the matter. The A.S.I. reached the village Budelpalli at 6.30 p.m. of 27-6-1977 and learnt from the people present in the meeting that the appellants had already confessed that they had killed the deceased inside their house. Then the appellants were taken to custody. While in custody, they stated that they had concealed the dead body of the deceased in a water reservoir locally known as Kendghati Kata and so saying they led the A.S.I. and the witnesses to the water reservoir and brought out the dead body from the water reservoir. Krushnakant who was present at the time of discovery of the dead body found that some gold ornaments which the deceased had on her person were missing. The A.S.I. then interrogated appellant No. 3 Sita Behera and she stated to have concealed the ornaments in her backyard and so saying she led the A.S.I. and the witnesses to her backyard and gave recovery of the ornaments which were seized by the A.S.I. under the seizure list Ext. 5. After usual investigation, the Officer-incharge of sason Police Station submitted charge-sheet against the appellants.
4. Appellants 1 and 2 are brothers. Appellant No. 3 is the wife of appellant No. 2. Their plea was a total denial of the occurrence.
5. On a consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution the trial court held the appellants guilty and inflicted the sentences as indicated above. On appeal, it is urged that the order of conviction is not borne out by any reliable evidence.
6. The order of conviction is based mainly on (a) the retracted extra-judicial confessions of the appellants before P.Ws. 5, 7, 8 and 9; (b) the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 that the deceased was last seen alive in the afternoon of 25-6-1977 while she was going to the house of the appellants; and (c) the statement of appellant No. 3 Sita Behera leading to discovery of the ornaments of the deceased from her backyard.
7. That the deceased died a homicidal death is clearly established by the evidence of the doctor P.W. 1. The doctor held the post-mortem examination over the dead body on 28-6-1977 at about 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.