Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Dhadia @ Mandar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
CRA No. 281 of 1999
Decided On : 15-09-2022
Criminal Law - Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC - Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act - [302, 201 IPC] - The judgment discusses the medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court relied on the medical evidence to establish the death as homicidal and not suicidal, and the circumstantial evidence to point to the guilt of the accused. The burden fell on the accused to show the circumstances under which the death occurred, and the court found no error in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and Section 201 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased, who was alleged to have committed suicide. The trial court convicted the appellant based on medical evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical evidence established the death as homicidal and not suicidal, and the circumstantial evidence pointed to the guilt of the accused. The burden fell on the accused to show the circumstances under which the death occurred, and the court found no error in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the sufficiency of medical and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the medical evidence to establish the death as homicidal and not suicidal, and the circumstantial evidence to point to the guilt of the accused. The burden fell on the accused to show the circumstances under which the death occurred, and the court found no error in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender forthwith and serve the remainder of the sentences.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 27th September 1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No.120-A of 1998, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and Section 201 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and RI for three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The present Appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail by an order dated 23rd June, 2000.
3. It must be mentioned at the outset that four accused persons were sent up for trial, of which, the present Appellant was Accused No.1 (A-1). However, the trial Court, by the impugned Judgment, while convicting A-1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC, acquitted the remaining three accused persons on the ground of no evidence to connect them with the alleged crime.
4. The case of the prosecution was that the deceased, namely, Suphala Sahu was alleged to have committed suicide on the night of 27th March, 1998 at her house. The incident was reported at the Bantala Police Station (PS) on 28th March, 1998 in the morning by one Sadananda Sahu (PW-8), the elder brother of Kuna Sahu @ Umesh Ch. Sahu (PW-3), who is the husband of the deceased, Suphala Sahu. Braja Kishore Nayak, the Officer-In-Charge (OIC) (PW-15) at the Bantala PS took up the investigation of the case. On his directions, the ASI Bhramarbar Behera held an inquest over the dead body and then sent for postmortem examination to the District Headquarters Hospital (DHH), Angul. Dr. Gopal Krishna Tripathy (PW-11) conducted the postmortem and opined that the death was due to asphyxia. In particular, the ligature mark was found to be post-mortem in nature. On perusing the postmortem report, the case was converted to Section 302 of IPC read with Section 201 of IPC.
5. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the four accused persons for the aforementioned offences. One accused, Ramesh Chandra Dehury was shown as an absconder.
6. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as fifteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence.
7. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant for the murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. In course of the trial, the trial Court invoked the powers under Section 311 of Cr PC to examine one Trinath Pradhan (PW13), who is the father of the deceased and Usha Pradhan (PW-14), who is the mother of the deceased.
8. Prior to the incident, the deceased had complained several times against the accused about his misbehaving with her after taking liquor. On one occasion, the accused even went to the village to create 'Golmal' with the deceased-daughter. Despite PW-13 complaining to the husband of the deceased, i.e., (PW-3), he did not take any action to prevent his younger brother, i.e. the Appellant, from misbehaving with the deceased.
9. The evidence of PW-14 was to the same effect. The deceased complained to PW-14 that the accused would come to her bedroom at night and she resisted him several times. During this time, PW-3, the husband of the deceased, was at Cuttack where he ran a betel shop. Because of resistance shown by the deceased, the accused Appellant was not successful in his attempts.
10. When they (PW-13 & PW-14) went to the village of the deceased on receiving information about her death, they found injuries on several parts of her body, including face, chest and hands. Neither PW-8 nor the accused was present. The mother-in- law of the deceased, i.e., the mother of the present Appellant caught hold of the feet of PW-13 and PW-14 and requested them to save the Appellant from criminal liability as he was the author of the crime. O
The burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the reliance on medical and circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
The judgment emphasizes the principles of circumstantial evidence and the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
The medical evidence and burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act are crucial in establishing guilt in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Dowry Death - Conviction upheld - Death of the deceased took place in the dwelling house of the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases based on circumstantial evidence, conclusive evidence is crucial to prove the case.
The prosecution must conclusively establish guilt through circumstantial evidence, including motive and cause of death, in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of events proves guilt exclusively and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death occurring ....
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
