Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
Bai @ Nilu @ Niranjan Behera - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
CRLA No. 736 of 2017
Decided On : 24-01-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302/394 of Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases of circumstantial evidence, including the need for a complete chain of evidence, the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt, and the necessity for cogent and trustworthy evidence. The court emphasized the importance of establishing motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in the present case. The court also scrutinized the evidence of last seen together, disclosure statement, and recovery of incriminating articles, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused committed murder and robbery, but the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The trial court found the accused guilty, but the High Court acquitted the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence, including the last seen together, disclosure statement, and recovery of incriminating articles. The court emphasized the importance of establishing motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in the present case. The court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the establishment of a complete chain of evidence, the failure to prove motive, and the lack of reliable and trustworthy evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence, the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt, and the necessity for cogent and trustworthy evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of establishing motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in the present case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted from the charges. The accused was ordered to be set at liberty, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Mohapatra, J. - The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25th day of September, 2017 passed in Crl. Trial No.29 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, whereby the Accused-Appellant has been found guilty of offence under Sections 302/394 of Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I..P.C.') and accordingly he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence U/s.302 of I.P.C.. Further sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years with payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence u/s.394 of I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31st August, 2010, a written FIR was lodged before the ASI of Khandagiri P.S. against an unknown accused person. In the FIR, it is stated by the informant that on 31st August, 2010 at about 9.30 A.M. while he was working as ASI of Khandagiri P.S., he along with Havildar Bharat Ch. Mallick were performing patrolling duty and during such patrolling, he got information from the police station that a dead body was lying near Bhaiji Restaurant, Patrapada. The informant immediately took the help of the local police and searched the nearby places and could find that the dead body of a male person was lying in the Patasbania bushy jungle, Patrapada. Upon a close inspection, he found several injuries on the body of the deceased. Two stone pieces stained with blood were lying at a nearby place. One gamucha (towel) was tied around his neck. The informant suspected murder of the deceased. As such, directed Havildar Bharat Ch. Mallick to guard the place and came back to police station and lodged a written FIR before the Inspector-in-Charge, Khandagiri P.S.
3. Basing on the aforesaid preliminary information, Khandagiri P.S. case No.313 of 2010 was registered. One A.K. Sethi, S.I. of Police took up investigation of the case. During investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, seized incriminating materials lying near the spot conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, took photograph of the same, sent the dead body for post mortem examination under dead body challan and completed all other formalities. One Purna Ch. Naik, the cousin brother of deceased identified the dead body from the photograph taken by the I.O. During investigation, it is alleged that while the appellant was in police custody, he confessed to have committed murder of the deceased for the auto rickshaw and laid the I.O. and the witnesses to the place of concealment of auto rickshaw, mobile phone, identity card of the deceased and his wearing apparels. On recovery of such articles, the I.O. seized the same and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination.
4. That after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted Charge-Sheet No.426 against the appellant under Sections 302/394 of I.P.C. and as such, the accused was made to face trial.
5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has altogether examined 16 witnesses in support of its case. It is made clear here that there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of the 16 witnesses, P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.2 is the Medical Officer, who examined the appellant on police requisition, P.W.3 is cousin brother of the deceased and the owner of the auto rickshaw , which was being driven by the deceased, P.W.4 is the witness to the seizure of the auto rickshaw, P.Ws.5 and 9 are police constables of Khandagiri police station and witnesses to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased, P.W.6 is a pharmacist of Bolgarh Area Hospital and is a witness to the seizure of OPD Register, P.W.7 is a police constable, who carried the dead body for postmortem examination, P.W.8 is a Havildar of Khandagi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
