Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Sanju Panda, J.P. Das, JJ.
Rupinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 1996 (From the judgment dated 16.8.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 122 of 1993 (arising out of G R No. 237 of 1991))
Decided On : 04-09-2018
Mr. S.K. Mund, D.P. Das and J.K. Panda, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mrs. S. Mohapatra, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent
Cases Referred
Tarseem Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1995 ACR 370
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) AIR 1662
Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need to establish a cogent and firmly established chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code - [Indian Penal Code, Section 302/34] - The court analyzed the evidence and acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a person and the demand for ransom. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as against the present appellant and acquitted the appellant from the charges made under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the authenticity of documents, and the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving every link of the chain of circumstantial evidence and the need for cogent and firmly established circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It also highlighted the significance of proving the motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant from the charges made under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. The appellant's bail bond was to be cancelled, and he was to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT
S. Panda, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.19996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 122 of 1993 (arising out of G.R. No. 237 of 1991) in convicting the present appellant along with another person, namely Sarabjit Singh for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.L for life.
2. The brief facts of the case as delineated in the judgment tend to reveal that on 10. 07.1991, the S. I. of Chandeli P.S. (P.W. 10) getting information regarding death of an unknown person, went to the spot, which was by the side of Sitagada Nala. He found the dead body of a Sikh person was lying in a bushy aread closed to the southern parapet of the bridge. He also found blood stains on the southern side of the pitch portion of the road and a trail of blood from the pitch portion to the spot, where the dead body was lying. One empty cartridge was lying on the eastern earthen plank of the road and another was lying near the dead body. He also noticed gun-shot injury on the person of the deceased. Accordingly, he drew up the plain paper FIR, registered a case and took up investigation. During investigation, he found that the deceased was Sadhu Singh, father of R W. 9 who was having truck business. According to P.W. 9, his father had informed him that Laximdhar Singh had demanded Rs. 50,000/- cash from him at Rayagada, failing which he would be kidnapped. On 7.7.1991 his father's Truck bearing No.ORJ-7067 proceeded to Rayagada. Following day, his father went to J.K. Pur with another Truck. On 11.7.91, accused Rupinder Singh informed P.W. 9 that his father was already kidnapped by Laxmidharand his associates on 9.7:91 and they had sent him (appellant) to collect Rs. 50,000/- from P.W. 9 or else his father would be liked and in case P.W. 9 goes to the police station, then he will be killed. On 14.7.91, he got information regarding murder of his father from police. During the course of investigation, M.O.I and II, i.e. two A.K.47 Rifles were seized from the possession of one Laxmidhar Singh and Sarabjeet Singh at Bhandaripokhari under Bhadrak District. Then, the I.O. sent the empty cartridges recovered front he spot to the Chemical Examiner to test the empty cartridges vis-a-vis the two Rifles and as to whether those cartridges were fired from the two Rifles. Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons, namely ; Sarabjit Singh, Laxmidhar Singh and Rupinder Singh (present appellant) for commission of offence under Sections 302/341 PC and 27 (3) of the Arms Act. On the prayer of the prosecution and also submission of the accused persons, this Court in Cri. Misc. Case No. 343/92 (State of Orissa vs. Laxmidhar Singh & Others) transferred the case from Rayagada and Bhadrak to the file of S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack. Out of three accused persons, since Laxmidhar Singh remained absconder after being released on bail, the trial was spilt up and the impugned judgment was pronounced as against the other two accused persons, namely; Rupinder Singh (present appellant) and Sarabjit Singh. Since Sarabjit die during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal preferred by him (CRA No.236 of 1996) was abated vide order dated 27.08.2018.
3. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial.
4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as may as eleven witnesses which includes P.W.4, who is the circumstantial witness regarding the demand of ransom with A. K 47 Rifles, P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted Post-Mortem examination over the dead body, P.W.9 is the son of the deceased and another circumstantial witness and P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the I.Os. of the case. Prosecution also exhibited certain documents as exhibits, which includes Ext.5- Post Mortem Report, P.W.9 the Written F.I.R., P.W. 12, the Chemical Examination report and Ext.4, the inland letter in orig
