Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D. Dash, V. Narasingh, JJ.
State of Orissa - Appellant
Versus
Madhia alias Madhaba Behera - Respondent
GCRLA No.18 of 2002
Decided On : 15-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Dhar, Advocate

In criminal proceedings based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the accused's innocence for a conviction to be secured.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Acquittal of the accused based on circumstantial evidence - The prosecution alleged the accused caused the death of the deceased, relying on circumstantial links regarding pregnancy and living arrangement - Key evidence not supporting the prosecution's claims, leading to an acquittal - The Trial Court's findings highlighted a lack of credible evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 12, 26, 31)

Facts of the case:
The deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances shortly after allegedly being in a relationship with the accused. The prosecution's case hinged on circumstantial evidence, including the deceased's pregnancy and recovery of the body.

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found no strong evidence linking the accused to the crime, concluding that evidence was insufficient to establish guilt.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the sufficiency and credibility of evidence, particularly the circumstantial evidence failing to conclusively point to guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that in circumstantial evidence cases, it is imperative that the evidence eliminates any reasonable doubt of the accused's innocence, which was not achieved in this case.

Result: GCRLA is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the case and prosecution's claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. witnesses and evidentiary documents discussed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. medical findings regarding the deceased's death. (Para 10 , 11)
5. circumstantial evidence requirements. (Para 12 , 13)
6. evaluation of evidence and contradictions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. arguments from both parties on the evaluation of evidence. (Para 27 , 28)
8. court's reasoning on the trial court's judgment. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
9. final order of dismissal. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned AGA for the Appellant and Mr. D. Dhar, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. Assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal dated 06.08.1998 in Sessions Trial No.110-D of 1995 acquitting the Respondent who was charged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) for having intentionally caused the death of one Gila Behera (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), the present appeal has been preferred by the State.

3. Briefly stated the case of the Prosecution was that the deceased was staying with her mother-Manas Bewa (P.W.1) in the village Paikpurunakote and the accused-Respondent was also a resident of the said village.

4. It is asserted by the Prosecution that the mother of the deceased came to know that the deceased was pregnant because of her relationship with the Respondent. And, on being questioned, as the Respondent disowned the pregnancy, the matter was placed before the village Bhadraloks and on their persuasion the accused took the deceased to his house and lived with her as his wife.

5. It is alleged that while the deceased was residing in the house of the accused, she was found dead in the morning of 03.05.1995.

6. The mother of the deceased-P.W.1 informed the Gram Rakhi-Sudarsan Naik and on the report of the Gram Rakhi, Balimi P.S. U.D. Case No.1/95 was registered and investigation was taken up by the O.I.C., Balimi P.S. (P.W.7) and during the course of investigation inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and on receipt of the post mortem report, on 20.05.1995 FIR was lodged and Balimi P.S. Case No.14/95 under Section 302 of IPC was instituted and P.W.1-the mother of the deceased was the informant and on the basis of her instruction, the FIR was written. On registration of such case, the I.O. took up investigation and on completion, he submitted the charge sheet against the Respondent under of for causing the death of Gila Behera.

7. To drive home the charge, the Prosecution examined seven witnesses.

P.W.1-Manasa Bewa is the mother of the deceased and informant.

P.W.2-Jhunu Behera is the wife of the accused- Respondent and stated to be the sole eyewitness. (It is apt to note here that she did not support the Prosecution).

P.W.3-Dasarathi Rath is the Sarpanch.

P.W.4-Laxmidhar Roul,

P.W.5-Akura Sahu and

P.W.6- Madhusudan Sahu are the co-villagers.

P.W.7 is the I.O.

8. Several documents were exhibited by the Prosecution as Exts.1 to 9. Of which Ext.9, the FIR, Ext.4, post mortem examination report and Ext.5, the opinion of the Doctor on the query made by the I.O. as to injuries are significant.

9. The defence plea was one of denial and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused-Respondent specifically stated that the deceased did not stay in his house for four days and that the deceased did not die in his house.

10. At the outset, it is apt to note that in the case at hand the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination has not been cited as a witness. However, the post mortem report and the opinion of the Medical Officer in terms of the query by the I.O. have been marked on admission under Section