Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Parija, A.S. Naidu, JJ.
MD. RAMJAN, SANTOSH YADAV AND MD. BABUJAN @ IMRAN KHAN - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
JCRLA Nos. 100, 102 and 105 of 2003
Decided On : 04-08-2009
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the absence of eyewitness testimony and when relying on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
I.P.C. - Murder - Section 302/34 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 235(1)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant faced trial for the commission of murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The accused were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies in the evidence, lack of eyewitnesses, and incomplete chain of events, leading to the benefit of doubt being drawn in favor of the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, lack of eyewitness testimony, and discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially in the absence of eyewitnesses. It highlighted the importance of complete and consistent evidence to establish guilt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside. The accused were acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Naidu, J. - All these appeals arise out of a common judgment. As the facts of all the appeals are same, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellant in all the three appeals faced trial in the court of Ad hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of I.P.C. in S.T. Case No. 82/9 of 2003. The prosecution case san of any unnecessary details is as follows:
3. The informant (P.W.1) on 14th October, 2002 at about 9.30 P.M. was told by the mother of "Fotlish" that her husband Tenia" was lying injured in front of the house of Binod Sahoo. After receiving the said information, P.W.1 rushed to the place and found that her husband was lying on the ground in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries. On enquiry her husband disclosed that accused Ramjan, Babujan and Santosh, accusing him to be a police informer, assaulted him by means of Bhujali and Talwar. The informant informed this fact to Laxman Sahoo (P.W.4) and taking his help brought her husband to her house. She requested one "Sister" to inform the incident over phone to Police. After receiving the information, the I.I.C. Plant Site P.S., Rourkela registered a case, came to the site, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and treated the same as formal F.I.R. and commenced investigation.
4. While matter stood thus, Tenia expired, consequently inquest was made, the dead body was sent for post mortem and the three accused persons were arrested. It is alleged that while in custody the accused persons confessed about their guilt and disclosed the place where they had hidden the weapons of offence. On the basis of such statement the weapon of offence was seized in presence of the witnesses.
After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted in G.R. Case No. 1720/2002 in the court of S.D.J.M., Panposh. Learned S.D.J.M. after going through the police papers and on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the court of Session for trial.
5. The plea of the accused persons was of complete denial.
In order to substantiate their case the prosecution got examined nine witnesses and exhibited several documents. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. P.W.1 was the informant and the wife of Tenia(the deceased), P. Ws.2, 3 and 4 were the post occurrence witnesses. P.Ws. 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.8 was the I.O. and P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who had given report, after examining the weapon of offence.
6. Learned Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence, relying upon the report of the Doctor (P.W.9), the statement made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery of the weapon of offence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the charges against the accused persons, consequently, they were found guilty and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months.
7. The said judgment is assailed by the accused persons by filing three appeals from Jail. Miss. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, strenuously placed before us the evidence, both oral and documentary. According to Miss Tripathy no iota of evidence is available to connect the Appellant with the alleged crime. It is stated that no person has seen the accused persons committing the offence. There were three accused persons, but only one weapon was seized. All the injuries, except one, were simple in nature. The statement recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act before the Police, while the accused persons were in custody, cannot be relied upon and last but not the least the prosecution had totally failed to establish the fact that the accused persons had committed the crime. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it is submitted, the Sessions Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity
