Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. MISHRA, A.K. MISHRA, JJ.
Runu Pradhan and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2000
Decided On : 18-09-2019
B. Panda, S.R. Mohapatra, Adv., B.R. Mohanty, Adv., H.K. Patra, Adv., N.K. Dash, Adv., K.K. Mishra, Adv.
The admissibility of evidence, sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof in criminal cases.
Headnote:
extrajudicial confession - Criminal Law - IPC 302, IPC 201, IPC 109 - The court discussed the admissibility of extrajudicial confession, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence in relation to the charge of homicide. The court found the extrajudicial confession inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under IPC sections 302 and 201. The prosecution's case was based on the discovery of a deceased child and extrajudicial confessions made before the villagers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the extrajudicial confession inadmissible and the circumstantial evidence inconclusive. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The admissibility of extrajudicial confession, the nature of the deceased's death, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusive.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and they were ordered to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mishra, J.
In this appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 31.07.2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case No.60-A/40 of 1999/2000, whereby the accused-convict Runu Pradhan being found guilty for the offence U/s.302 and 201 of the IPC, has been sentenced to life imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment and the accused-convict-Jayanti Pradhan on being convicted for the offence U/s.302 read with Section 109 of the IPC has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.10.1998, the five years old son namely Ranjana of the informant had been to the house of grandmother in that village but did not return for about one hour. The mother searched. The accused-Runu told her that the lad might be playing with others. By evening the informant smelled a rat as she was forced to marry Bijay Pradhan as per the decision of the villagers. When she could not trace the son, she called Udhab Behera-P.W.6 to search the well. Udhhab dived and brought out the dead body from their well. The dead body was then taken to the Mandap (Pendal) of the village. The accused persons admitted their guilty. F.I.R. was lodged on next day at 6.30. A.M. resulting registration of Rengali Dam Site P.S. Case No.33 dated 26.10.1998.
In course of investigation, inquest was made. The written extrajudicial confession was seized from one Maheswar Dehury (not examined), brother of the informant. Post-mortem was conducted by P.W.5 opining that the probable cause of death was due to asphyxia. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The accused persons faced trial for offence U/s. 302 and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
Prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. Defence examined none. The plea of defence is denial simplicitor and false implication.
P.W.1 is the informant. Her mother is P.W.4. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are co-villagers. P.W.5 is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem. P.W.6 is the diver who recovered the dead body from the well. P.W.7 is the scribe of the confessional statement i.e. Ext.7 and Ext.8 stated to have been given by the accused persons before the villagers. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. No witnesses is examined on behalf of the defence. F.I.R., post-mortem, dead body challan, inquest report, seizure list etc. are marked as Exts.1 to 9.
2.A Learned Addl. Sessions Judge believing the Doctor found that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. He believed P.W.7 and extrajudicial confession under Exts. 7 and 8 to connect the accused persons as the author of such culpable homicide. According to him, the previous bitterness for marital jealousy was the motive. Consequently, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
2.B Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in accepting the extrajudicial confession in written (Ext.7 and Ext.8) which is stated by P.W.7 to have been made before the police. He contended that there is no evidence to prove conclusively that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature because the Doctor-P.W.5 did not find any external injury and opined that it was post-mortem drowning. According to him, the bleeding from nostril could be possible as per the Doctor by pressure given on the chest, if dashed against the boundary of the well and thereby the absence of any mark of external injury regarding throttling rules out the possibility of homicidal death.
Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate-Mr. K.K. Mishra refuted the above contentions submitting that the totality of the circumstances coupled with medical evidence establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the statement in Ext.7 and Ext.8 can be considered as extra-judicial confessions made before the villagers.
3. We perused the record of the l
