Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Parija, A.S. Naidu, JJ.
DUSASAN PANDA AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 17-08-2009
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in the absence of eyewitnesses.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 302, 201/34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of Rajendra, who was allegedly assaulted and killed by the accused due to previous enmity arising from land disputes. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution was able to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and prior enmity.
Issues: The main issue was the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused and be inconsistent with their innocence. It also considered the 'last seen theory' and the presence of prior enmity as factors in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted three of the accused due to lack of reliable evidence, but convicted one accused under IPC Section 304, Part-II, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Naidu, J. - The Appellants seek to assail the Judgment & order of conviction dated 1st March, 1996 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No. 19/52 of 1994 convicting them for commission of offences under. Sections 302, 201/34, IPC & sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302/34, IPC & further imprisonment of two years for the offence u/s 201/34, IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Sajani Naik (P.W.15) lodged an F I.R. at Simulia Police Station on 5th August, 1993 alleging that on 3rd August, 1993 her son Rajendra was assaulted by the accused Bhaskar Naik in a meeting convened in the village on the ground that he had assaulted the mother of Dasarathi Naik. It is alleged that on account of previous enmity arising out of land disputes, accused Bhaskar assaulted her son, making false allegations against him, though he was innocent. In the meeting he had also threatened to kill Rajendra. On the night of 5th August, 1993 there was a festival near deity Mangala. Her son Rajendra went to the 'Mela' along with the accused Bhaskar in spite of the protest made by the informant. Thereafter, he did not return home. She searched for her son, but in vain. In the morning, the dead body of her son was found floating in Khajuria tank. After coming to know about the sa.id fact, she came to the police station & lodged the F.I.R.
3. The O.I.C., Simulia Police Station registered a case & took up investigation. In course of investigation he visited the spot, examined the witnesses, caused inquest over the dead body & sent the same for post-mortem examination. As the accused Dhaneswar & Dusasan were absconding, they were arrested at a later date. After completing all paraphernalia, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Learned S.D.J.M. on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offence & committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court.
4. The plea of the defence was of complete denial. It is alleged that in view of previous enmity, they have been falsely implicated.
5. To substantiate their case, prosecution got examined 21 witnesses. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.
6. Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the occurrence & the entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence of all the witnesses, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt & convicted them for commission of offence Under Sections 302, 201/34, IPC.
7. Mr. B. Panda, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants strenuously placed all the evidence before this Court & submitted that in absence of convincing legal evidence, Learned Sessions Judge erroneously convicted the Appellants & the conclusions arrived at are only on the basis of surmises & conjectures. According to Mr.Panda, in absence of any direct evidence to connect the Appellants with the crime, the Court below should have disbelieved the prosecution case. The circumstantial evidence upon which the prosecution relies upon, according to Mr. Panda, are neither reliable nor capable of supporting exclusive hypothesis that the accused persons are only responsible, & as such the conclusions arrived at by the Learned Addt. Sessions Judge cannot be sustained According to Mr.Panda, there is neither any convincing & cogent evidence nor the evidence produced is reliable, inasmuch as the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case & most of them have turned hostile, as such, in absence of reliable corroboration, the Court below should not have convicted the Appellants relying upon the sole testimony of the informant, P.W.15.
8. Repudiating the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr.Patnaik, Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the doctor clearly
