Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, BISWAJIT MOHANTY, JJ.
Sadan Gouda – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JCRLA No. 06 of 2005
Decided On : 17-01-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Devasis Panda.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik.
The judgment establishes the principle that suspicions cannot substitute proof, especially in cases of higher gravity of offense. It emphasizes the need for conclusive evidence and a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Extra-Judicial Confession - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC - The judgment discusses the parameters for appreciating circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. The court analyzes the testimonies of various witnesses to determine the credibility of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. The judgment highlights the contradictions in the evidence and the lack of conclusive proof to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence, including extra-judicial confession. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and material evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. The court highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the extra-judicial confession, the chain of circumstances, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicions cannot take the place of proof, especially in cases of higher gravity of offense. The judgment underscored the need for conclusive evidence and a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Jail Criminal Appeal succeeded, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if his incarceration was not required in connection with any other case.
JUDGMENT :
BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J.
1. The appellant-Sadan Gouda has preferred this Jail Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12.10.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2002 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nabarangapur convicting him under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. (Ext.2) is as follows:-
On 20.01.2002 at about noon, the informant (PW-4), his brother (PW-1) and another were carrying manure to the field. At that point of time, PW-3, who is the mother of the informant (PW-4) informed them that the appellant holding a tangi was shouting that he had killed his wife. In such background, the informant came to the house of the appellant and saw the appellant brandishing an axe was giving blows to nearby trees. Accordingly, PW-4 (informant) did not go near him but informed the Grama Rakhi. PW-2 and PW-11, who are the co-villagers along with others tried to overpower the appellant but the appellant rushed towards them brandishing the axe. Therefore, they could not go near him and also could not know about his wife. In such background, they sent two persons to the police station. Later, the appellant was overpowered by PW-8 with the help of others and when the informant and others went inside, they saw the dead-body of the wife of the appellant in-front of the kitchen. They also saw cut injuries on the neck of the deceased and when they asked the appellant, he disclosed that he has killed his wife. Information was lodged at about 8.00 P.M. before PW-12. Accordingly, formal F.I.R. was drawn up and investigation was taken up. During investigation, PW-12 visited the spot, examined the complaint and witnesses, he seized one axe (M.O.I) with wooden handle stained with blood kept in the roof of the house of the appellant. Accordingly, seizure list under Ext.3 was prepared. He also seized one necklace, piece of broken red colour bangle, some blood stained earth and some sample earth and prepared seizure list (Ext.4). He conducted inquest over the dead-body of Sanai Gouda and prepared inquest report under Ext.1. He also seized one banyan, one lungi and one napkin from the appellant vide seizure list under Ext.5. He arrested the appellant and forwarded him to the court. He received the post-mortem report and sent the weapon of offence to the doctor (PW-13) for his opinion. Ext.8/2 is the opinion of the doctor (PW-13). He sent the seized articles for chemical examination to the Reigional Forensics Science Laboratory, Berhampur vide Ext.10 and Ext.11 is the chemical examination report. Inspector-U.C. Nayak took charge of the investigation from him and submitted charge sheet. Accordingly, the appellant stood trial for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3. Prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. PW-4 is the informant and PW-1 happens to be the brother of PW-4 and nephew of the appellant. PWs. 2, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are the co-villagers. PW-3 is the sister-in-law of the appellant. PWs. 5 and 11 are the sons of the appellant. PW-7 is the father of the appellant. PW-12 is the I.O. PW-13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy. As indicated in the judgment, five material objects were admitted to the evidence.
4. None has been examined from the side of the appellant and no exhibits has been marked on his behalf. However, the plea of the appellant was complete denial.
5. Learned trial court after scanning the evidence on record came to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charges and accordingly found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder.
6. Mr. Debasis Panda as learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submitted that present is a case where there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and chain of circumstances being incomplete, the learned trial court has gone wrong in convicting the appellant o
