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
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
Gian Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 3395
Mohd. Azad alias Samin v. State of West Bengal
Nizam v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2015 SC 3430
Rajkumar v. State of M.P. (2014) 5 SCC 353
SK Yusuf v. State of West Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754
State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73
State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar AIR 2000 SC 2988
State thr. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mahender Singh Dahiya
Trimukh Maroti Krikan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances should be such so as to lead to only one irresistible conclusion, which is incompatible with innocence of accused.
Point of Law : Contradictory statements regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant, we are of the view that such type of extra judicial confession has no such value in the eye ....
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances to exclude every reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the a....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory were central to the judgment. The court emphasized the need fo....
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.