Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, S.K.PANIGRAHI, JJ.
Durjan Majhi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa - Respondent
JCRLA No.23 of 2016
Decided On : 19-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant - Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate
For the Respondent - Mr. Sitikant Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness unless it meets the highest standard of reliability and is free from major contradictions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - The Appellant was convicted of murder based on the testimony of a solitary witness, which the court ultimately found unreliable due to contradictions in the evidence. The acquittal of the co-accused further weakened the prosecution's case. The evidence did not satisfactorily connect the recovery of the weapon to the crime. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Testimony of Solitary Witness - While a conviction can be based on the testimony of a singular witness, it must be of the highest quality and reliability, particularly in cases where major contradictions exist. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was convicted for murdering the husband of the informant, with the alleged crime involving multiple assailants, but the court acquitted one and found the informant's testimony untrustworthy due to inconsistencies.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the evidence provided by the informant was unsafe for conviction, especially in light of the co-accused's acquittal and the lack of corroborating evidence.

Issues: Whether the reliance on the sole witness's testimony was justified, given its inconsistencies and contradictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the informant, although the only eyewitness, was not of sterling quality and could not support a conviction. The case lacked sufficient evidence connecting the accused to the murder.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding witness credibility and prosecution's evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis of evidence and judgement validity. (Para 9 , 10)
4. principles concerning reliance on solitary witness testimony. (Para 12 , 13)
5. conclusion of appeal; conviction set aside. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. Case No.265 of 2012 arising out of G.R Case No. 229 of 2012 corresponding to Tikabali P.S. Case No.65 of 2012 of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), G.Udayagiri.

The Appellant (accused), having faced the Trial with another namely Biju @ Bijesh Pradhan, standing charged for commission of offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short;”the IPC”); said Biju @Bijesh Pradhan has been acquitted of the charge. The Appellant (Accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with payment of fine Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

2. Prosecution case is that on 24.08.2012 around 4 p.m., the husband of Basanti Majhi (Informant-P.W.1), namely Kartika Majhi when was inside the house, that Biju Pradhan (since acquitted) being armed with thenga, entered in to the house and gave slaps to the deceased. It is further stated that said Biju again gave lathi blows on the back of the deceased for which he fell down. After that also Biju (since acquitted) is said to have given one more lathi blow upon Kartika (deceased). This accused is said to have then appeared at the place of occurrence being armed with an axe and it is said that he inflicted several blows by means of that axe upon the waist, thigh and head of the deceased causing incised wounds. Basanti Majhi, the wife of the deceased (P.W.1) then submitted a written report before the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Police in charge of Linepada Police Out Post. The fact was entered into the station diary book maintained in the said Police Out Post and the written report was sent to IIC, Tikabali Police Station for registration of the case. The ASI (P.W.7), while sending the written report to Tikabali Police Station for registration of the regular case took up preliminary investigation at his level. He had examined the complainant and other witnesses. He too had recorded their statements, visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ext.5). The dead body of the deceased had been sent for post mortem examination. Having held the inquest over the dead body of Kartika in presence of the witnesses, he had prepared the Inquest Report (Ext.1/1). The informant, who happens to be the wife of the deceased (P.W.1) having been found to have been injured, was sent for medical examination by issuing the requisition. He then as directed handed over the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of Tikabali Police Station along with all the papers prepared. He arrested the accused. One thenga had been seized from the house of Biju @ Bijesh Pradhan (since acquitted). It is stated that this accused Durjan being arrested by giving the statement, took the police and other witnesses to give recovery of the axe which had been kept in the heap of fire wood and that being recovered by accused Durjan was handed over to the I.O which was seized.

3. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) submitted the Final Form placing this accused and that Biju @ Bijesh Pradhan to face the trial for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC.

4. Learned JMFC, G.Udayagiri, having received the Final Form as above, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document