Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY, J.
Baban @ Debadatta Acharya and another – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.70 of 1990
Decided On : 22-12-2022
For the Appellants :Mr. S. Panda, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Das, Additional Standing Counsel
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt favors the accused, leading to acquittal in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 Part-II and 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellants convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Court held that prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence and credible explanation regarding injuries - Prosecution's narrative uncorroborated and defense's account of group clash seen as more probable. (Paras 5, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Evidentiary Standards - Benefit of doubt - When doubts arise regarding prosecution's account, the benefit of such reasonable doubts must be extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The Appellants were convicted for the murder of Naba Kishore Nayak during a group clash following a feast, while the prosecution case lacked substantial evidence against them. (Paras 1, 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently linked the Appellants to the crime and that the evidence of witnesses was either discredited or insufficient to uphold the conviction. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the existence of reasonable doubts, and whether the injuries to the deceased were consistent with the prosecution’s claims. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the principle that benefits of doubt favor the accused. (Paras 11, 13)
Result: Appeal allowed; Appellants acquitted of charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction basis on prosecution case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense claims false implication (Para 4) |
| 3. trial court's scrutiny of evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. lack of evidence regarding weapon (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. doubts over prosecution credibility (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. benefit of doubt favors accused (Para 13) |
| 7. appeal allowed and acquitted (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 304, Part-II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No.178/37 of 1989. The Appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 20th November, 1988 at about 7.00 P.M., the Appellants committed murder of the deceased-Naba Kishore Nayak. All total ten accused persons faced the trial for commission of offences under Sections 302 /341/323/109/34, I.P.C. and except present two Appellants, others have been acquitted of the charges completely. It is alleged that near Kartikeswar Mandap of village Aanikana a feast was arranged. Some of the accused persons reached at the feast and a scuffle ensued between the informant and those accused persons there, which was pacified by some village gentlemen. After some time then, when the deceased was returning to his house from his field, present two Appellants being armed with one Iron Khadika (spatula) and Badi (stick), who are the sons of one of the accused, namely, Madhaba Acharya, assaulted the deceased near the plum tree in front of the house of Nrusinghacharan Acharya. As a result of the assault, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and he was immediately shifted to hospital, but died on the way.
3. All total 16 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were marked in exhibits, besides four material objects. P.Ws.1 to 5 are stated to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, P.W.8 is the Doctor, who did postmortem examination of the dead-body, P.W.14 is the Doctor, who treated the deceased initially in the local hospital and referred him to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack before he died on the way going to Cuttack, P.Ws.11 & 16 are the two Police Investigating Officers. P.W.1 is the informant on whose report Binjharpur P.S. Case No.161 dated 21.11.1988 was registered. P.W.16 took up initial investigation and subsequently P.W.11 completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet.
4. Defence examined one witness (D.W.1) on their behalf. Defence case is that, on the date of occurrence there was a group clash in the village between the informant’s group on one hand and the supporters of Nrusingha Charan Nayak on the other side. Initially the quarrel ensued due to passing of comments by the informant and others followed by free pelting of stones and brick-bating from both sides resulting death of the deceased and injuries to many others. The further case of the defence is that the Appellants, who are college going students by then, have been falsely implicated in the case.
5. Learned trial court upon scrutiny of the evidence has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against other accused persons except the Appellants. Further, the charges under Section 341 read with Section 34 , I.P.C. is established against both the Appellants, and the charge for offence under Section 323 , I.P.C. is established against Appellant No.2-Chandra@Jatindra Acharya. In the opinion of the learned trial court though death of the deceased is established due to assault made by the Appellants, but considering the circumstances that they have dealt one blow each, the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for having caused the fatal bodily injury on the deceased, is established. Accordingly, the learned trial court hold both the Appellants guilty for commission of offences of culpable homicide not amounting to mur
