IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. MURALIDHAR, R.K. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Sudhir Ojha@ Mitu – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
JCRLA No.77of 2006 & CRLA No. 432 of 2006
Decided on : 01-08-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC - [MURDER] - [Section 302, Section 34 of IPC] - The trial Court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the weapon of offence and the gold ring, conduct of the accused after the occurrence, identification of the seized gold ring, and detection of human blood on the wearing apparels of accused. However, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish each link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in the murder of two individuals who were found dead with severe injuries. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the weapon of offence and the gold ring, conduct of the accused after the occurrence, identification of the seized gold ring, and detection of human blood on the wearing apparels of accused.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish each link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proved each link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish each link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned Judgment and order of sentence of the trial Court and acquitted the Appellants of the offence with which they were charged.
JUDGMENT :
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
1. These are two appeals challenging the same judgment of the trial Court and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8th June 2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.C. No.28 of 2001 (S.C. 205/2001- GDC), convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The Appellant in JCRLA No.77 of 2006 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 27th April, 2009 of this Court. As far as the three Appellants in CRLA No.432 of 2006 are concerned, while Appellant Nos.2 & 3 were released on bail by the order dated 3rd December 2009, Appellant No.1 was released on bail by order dated 10th December, 2009.
3. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant in CRLA No.432 of 2006 and Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in JCRLA No.77 of 2006. In both the appeals, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) appeared for the State.
Case of the prosecution
4. The case of the prosecution was that one E. Mohan Rao Patra (PW-1) lodged an FIR at the Surada Police Station in the District of Ganjam on 13th September, 2000 that on the same day at around 10 am his son E. Krishna Rao Patro (deceased) and a covillager, Ladu Dala Behera (also deceased) went to the village Daringibari in a Hero Honda Motorcycle for collecting money in connection with their business. At around 3pm, PW-1 heard about two dead bodies lying at Baimala Ghat No.1, which is around 3 kms away from village Gajalabadi. E. Bijay Kumar Patra (PW-2), the younger son of PW-1, and S. Sarat Chandra Prusty (PW-3) along with two others went to the spot by motor cycles and found the two dead bodies lying on the road. They found the dead body of Krishna Rao Patro with cut injuries in the neck, left arm and the right side waist. As far as Ladu Dala Behera is concerned, the body had been split into different parts by cutting.
5. The case of the prosecution as spoken by Upendra Sahoo (PW- 25), the Investigating Officer (IO) was that after reaching the spot, he re-examined the complainant and the aforementioned four witnesses and then contacted ‘sources’. According to him, he ‘ascertained from my sources that the accused persons are six in number within the age group of 20 to 30 who got down from bus near the spot at Ramanabadi chhak and all of them were wearing full pant and shirts, wearing boot sandle etc.’
Investigation
6. What happened thereafter was also supposed to have been based on the contact of the IO with his ‘sources’, and his making ‘secret enquiries’ which revealed the ill-feelings of the accused persons with the deceased; about the business rivalry between the deceased Krishna Rao Patro with one Krishore Prusty son of late Gangadhar Prusty of village Asurabandho relating to rice business. On 14th September, 2000 at 1.15 am, PW-25 left for Asurabandho and at 2.30 am, he left Asurabandho for Sorada. At Sorada near the Block office at Kaithapalli Sahi he could trace the bus in which the accused traveled. He is stated to have examined the conductor Swaraj Rout (PW-13), the helper Kanhu Nayak (PW-4) and the driver Pradip Kumar Sing (not examined as a witness) and recorded their statements.
7. According to PW-25, after recording the statements of the above three persons, he could ascertain that the six accused boarded the bus from Govindapur, got down at Ramanabadi chhak on 13th September, 2000.
8. The IO then stated that during the investigation, he examined one Durjodhan Bisoi (examined as Defence Witness) (DW-1) and T. Maheswari Reddy (PW-21) of village Masiakhali and Ambapua who were proceeding towards Daringibadi side i
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
Trimukh Maroti Kalan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
Brijesh Mavi v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 45
Kanhai Mishra@ Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar (2001) 3 SCC 451
Delhi High Court in Sunil v. State (2018) 251 DLT 639
Kanhai Mishra@ Kanhaiya Misra v. State of Bihar
Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 632
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755
Shivaji Chinatappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626 : AIR 2021 SC 1249
Thankayyan v. State of Kerala (1994) SCC (Cri) 1751
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
Trimukh Maroti Kalan v. State of Maharashta (2006) 10 SCC 681
Brijesh Mavi v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 45
Kanhai Mishra@ Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar (2001) 3 SCC 451
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.