IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Sahoo, Sibo Sankar Mishra, JJ.
Anil Kujur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
JCRLA No.79 of 2005
Decided On : 08-09-2023
MURDER - Homicide and Circumstantial Evidence - IPC Sections 302, 201, 34 - The court discussed the application of Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. It emphasized the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the importance of motive, the reliability of confessions, and the last seen theory, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants Anil Kujur and Rantho Tanty @ Jayapuria faced trial in the Court of learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.24/111 of 2004 for commission of offences under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that on 09.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. in village Bhagatpada, Kansabahal, they committed murder of one Bhaja Kindo (hereinafter 'the deceased') and threw his dead body on the railway track in order to cause disappearance of the evidence in furtherance of their common intention.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 found both the appellants guilty under the aforesaid charges and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter 'F.I.R.') presented by Rama Kindo (P.W.6) before the Officer in-charge of Kansabahal Out Post, Kansbahal on 24.11.2003, is that on 09.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased who was his younger brother came on a bicycle along with the appellants to his house and asked his sister to give him Rs.10/- (rupees ten), but the sister of the deceased refused to pay the money, for which all of them went to the house of a neighbour, namely, Jeera Lakra (P.W.5) and thereafter they went away. It is stated that the deceased was a cowman and he was staying in the house of Terenga Kindo (P.W.7) in village Dipatoli and occasionally he was visiting his own house. On the next day, the deceased did not come to his house. The informant and his family members remained under an impression that the deceased might have gone to the house of P.W.7 for which they did not search for him. On 10.11.2003, one naked dead body of a person was found on the railway track near Kansabahal by the G.R.P.S., Rourkela police and they registered U.D. case no.37 of 2003 and seized the body and sent it for post mortem examination. On 12.11.2003, some local boys while tending cows found the cycle of P.W.7 lying in a nala and they kept it in the house of one Golta Bada. Hearing about the recovery of the cycle, P.W.7 came to the house of Golta Bada and indentified his cycle which the deceased had taken with him while leaving his house. P.W.7 along with P.W.6 came to G.R.P.S., Rourkela where they identified the photographs of the dead body as that of the deceased and ascertained further that the dead body had been sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter, P.W.6 came back to his village with P.W.7 and disclosed about the matter before others. The appellants being confronted confessed that after consuming liquor, they had committed murder of the deceased by strangulating his neck and laid the dead body between the railway tracks near Kansabahal and also concealed the wearing apparels of the deceased. It is further stated that the villagers were calling the mother of the informant as 'witch' and threatening her and abusing her in case any villager was falling ill.
The written report presented by P.W.6 was sent to the Inspector in-charge of Rajgangpur police station for registration of the case and accordingly, the Inspector in-charge of Rajgangpur police station registered Rajgangpur P.S. Case No.167 dated 24.11.2003 under sections 302/201/34 of I.P.C. and directed the Sub-Inspector in-charge of Kansabahal Out Post, namely, Mayadhar Rout (P.W.10) to take up investigation, who had already taken up preliminary steps of investigation.
During the course of investigation, P.W.10 examined the informant (P.W.6) as well as other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.11) and seized an old Avon cycle from the house of Golta Bada as per seizure list Ext.12 and also collected the relevant documents concerning the connected U.D. Case No.37 of 2003 of G.R.P.S., Rourkela. P.W.10 arrested the appellants on 26.11.2003 and while in custody of police, they confessed their guilt and after recording of the s
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that leads to the only conclusion of guilt, leaving no room for reasonable....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction upheld due to strong incriminating circumstances.
Extrajudicial confessions must be voluntary and credible; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and conclusive chain excluding reasonable doubt for a conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with the prosecution required to establish every link beyond reasonable doubt.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – Application of theory of ‘last seen’ in absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together would be hazard....
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
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.