SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Sanmat Kumbhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JCRLA No. 71 of 2009
Decided On : 18-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pradip Kumar Dhal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent

The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 201 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the offences of murder and rape of a 6-year-old girl. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, discovery of the dead body in the accused's house, and medical evidence of homicidal death and rape.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, discovery of the dead body in the accused's house, and medical evidence of homicidal death and rape. The court also considered the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the incriminating circumstances.

Issues: The main issue was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the medical and forensic evidence in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The court concluded that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in S.C. No.27 of 2006 convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 (2)(f) of the I.P.C. and sentencing him, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year; and for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) I.P.C., to undergo RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year. The Appellant was also convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13th February, 2006 at around 10 am, the Appellant-accused visited the house of the informant-Bada Bibhar (P.W.22) and talked with his grand- daughter, the deceased (Sima Bibhar) aged 6 years. The Appellant then called the deceased and Durjan, the grandson of P.W.22 to eat chana (nuts) in his house. While the accused was taking the deceased and Durjan Kumbhar to his house, the sarpanch of the village, Krupasindhu Mohananda (P.W.7), Duryodhan Chhura (P.W.9) and Sashi Chhura (P.W.14) noticed it.

3. One hour later, Durjan returned home alone and on being asked, he informed that the deceased was sitting on the verandah of the accused. Thereafter, P.W.22 came to the house of the accused along with Durjan but could not find the deceased. On being asked, both the accused and his wife informed them that Sima had gone away. P.W.22 then searched for Sima in the village and paddy field but could not find her. When P.W.22 again went to the house of the accused, he found the door was locked. The wife of the accused was sitting there. On being asked, she stated that the keys of the house were with her husband and then she went looking for him. Sometime thereafter the accused came there and on being asked to open the lock, he stated that his wife had the keys and went away. The informant then suspected something amiss and informed the sarpanch (P.W.7) and ward member. P.W.7 and the ward member then went searching for the accused but could not find him. P.W.7 then informed the police. Thereafter, the wife of the accused pulled out the chain (sikuli) of the door and inside the house, the dead body of the deceased was found concealed in a gunny bag. It was kept in the 'kukudabhadi'. There were injury marks on the forehead, below the mouth, neck and other parts. The black underpants worn by the deceased and her copper chain were lying near the spot.

4. P.W.22 then presented a written report before the Inspector in- Charge (IIC), Titilagarh Police Station (PS) i.e. Sri Satyanarayan Panda (P.W.16). After the inquest, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem Examination, which revealed that the deceased had died due to throttling and massive injuries to the genital organs. From the house of the accused, P.W.16 seized many material objects including the gunny bag with the blood like stains, the copper chain, the black colour underpants, the wearing apparels of the deceased.

5. On 19th February 2006, PW 16 conducted a raid at village Sibtala in the house of one Govinda Dip and apprehended the Appellant. He seized a white colour dhoti from the house of the Appellant and sent it for chemical examination. Exhibits were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL). On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the Appellant for the aforesaid offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, 22 witnesses were examined. The Appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and claimed that on the relevant date, he had been to the local school on the instructions of P.W.7 and to beat the drum in certain villages. He claimed to have r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top